Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

UNIBANK BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second, time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Helicopter Carrier

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the defence gains from the recent award of the contract for a helicopter carrier for the Royal Navy.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The new helicopter carrier will significantly enhance the Royal Navy's amphibious capabilities. It will give an amphibious task force the helicopter support needed to deploy or reinforce troops quickly.

Mr. Robinson: The decision to award the contract is widely welcomed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new helicopter platform ship will serve as a pad for the new EH101 helicopter when it comes into service? Will he encourage the Royal Air Force to follow the lead of the Royal Navy and place orders for the helicopter which will do so much to safeguard jobs in the defence industry in the south-west?

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the important order which will indeed enhance our defence capabilities for many years to come. What helicopters will fly from it must depend on the outcome of current studies into the support helicopter requirements. However, I am well aware of my hon. Friend's and many others' strong support and enthusiasm for the EH101. I very much hope that, if the price is right, it may turn out to be our choice, just as the Merlin version was our choice for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Hutton: I welcome the Government's decision to place a contract for the new helicopter carrier with Vickers Shipbuilders and. Engineering Ltd. in my constituency, but will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that, if the Royal Navy is to have a fully effective and operational

amphibious capability, the Government will need to place further orders for the replacement for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? When will those orders be placed?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If we are to have a proper amphibious warfare capability, we shall need additional amphibious shipping to go with the LPH in the longer term. I know that his constituents will be delighted that the LPH order has gone to VSEL in his constituency. As for the landing platform dock replacements, I can tell him that project definition studies into the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid are being undertaken now. The timing of an order will be subject to the successful outcome of the project definition phase and the subsequent tender process.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which possess nuclear weapons capable of being delivered to targets in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Such weapons are possessed by Russia, China, France and the United States. Some weapons are also possessed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but these are controlled by the Commonwealth of Indpendent States.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the list is growing ever longer, with the Ukraine selling missiles to whoever is prepared to pay for them? Does not that mean that this country's safety is threatened even more? Does he agree it is important that the Walworth road is protected because we want our children and grandchildren not only to read about the demise of socialism in libraries and schools but to be able to go down the Walworth road to see for themselves where the last of the Bolsheviks lived and worked? Does he agree that the Walworth road should be a nuclear-free zone because the safety of that lot is in our interests?

Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the Ukraine and, as I said, strategic weapons are not under its control. I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, that it is just possible that if we had four seagoing versions of my hon. Friend, we would probably need no other equipment. However, in the absence of three clones of my hon. Friend, I think we perhaps need to maintain our minimum deterrent.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister now list all the countries in the world that can be hit by nuclear weapons? Does he accept that, if Britain argues that nuclear deterrence is essential for our defence, so can the Government of every other country in the world? Is not the logic of the Government's position that the entire world should now embark on a policy of nuclear expansion, because there is no other defence against countries that have nuclear weapons?

Mr. Hanley: Updating our minimum deterrent is entirely consistent with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Furthermore, I would say that we have adhered closely to our responsibilities. After all, in recent years, the United Kingdom has cut its RAF nuclear


strike squadrons from 11 to eight; we have given up nuclear artillery and Lance missile roles; we have announced a reduction of more than half in the WE177 bomb stockpile; and on 15 June last year, we announced the elimination of our maritime tactical nuclear weapon capability—in that area, we have felt able to go further than other nuclear powers. I believe that our record is good, but, for the safety of the world, we need to maintain our minimum nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need a sub-strategic nuclear weapon? Does he not believe that for a deterrent to be effective, people such as Saddam Hussein have to believe that, if they use nuclear weapons, we have something with which to strike back?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have been examining a range of options for providing the United Kingdom's long-term sub-strategic capability, and we expect to be in a position to make our intentions clear in the near future.

Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister accept that one of the surest ways to reduce the threat of any nuclear attack on Britain is to limit the number of countries that possess nuclear weapons by ensuring that the nonproliferation treaty is renewed? The Secretary of State acknowledged to me in a letter dated 14 June that various signatories to the non-proliferation treaty see a direct link between its renewal and progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Bearing that in mind, will Britain now join France, Russia and the United States in supporting a moratorium on nuclear testing?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman well knows why we believe that nuclear testing is possibly desirable: it maintains both our credibility and the safety of our nuclear stockpile. The matter is being discussed in the United States, perhaps at this very moment, and I believe that the President knows our views.
I have already said that we are fully signed up to the long-term aims of the non-proliferation treaty, and we have made great progress ourselves. We are therefore ensuring that our position of strength helps to encourage other countries not to possess nuclear weapons, and we are taking great pains to ensure that countries do not possess nuclear weapons of any sort.

Spending Levels

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received over the past decade regarding defence spending levels.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Over the past decade, my Department has received a number of representations on defence spending levels from hon. Members and from members of the public.

Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the fact that many of those who, at the height of the cold war, urged us to abandon nuclear weapons as immoral and to slash defence spending have apparently come to the conclusion, now that the cold war is over, that we need nuclear weapons after all, that we must save every regiment and even bomb Serbia, and bearing in mind the fact that the leading politician who opposed Trident as militarily unacceptable

is now lobbying for Trident refit work in his constituency, does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that that represents a genuine change of heart, or is it the usual unholy mixture of hyprocisy, opportunism, and pork-barrel politics?

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly one of the lasting mysteries about the Opposition that they were unable to support our nuclear deterrent during the cold war, but that they claim that Trident will be safe in their hands now, when the Soviet Union no longer exists.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State is currently spending money completing three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter on Tyneside. Will he now give an assurance that those three frigates will be finished on Tyneside by the work force at Swan Hunter, under the control of the existing management?

Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we very much hope that it will be possible to complete the frigates at Swan Hunter. I am cautiously optimistic that that will indeed prove possible, but the discussions that are taking place are not yet complete.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that all those people working in the defence industries and in our armed forces should be glad that the Conservative party won the election last year and not either of the rabbles opposite—one of which proposes a cut in spending of 6 per cent. and the other a cut of 50 per cent? Will he assure the many MOD and armed forces personnel working in North Yorkshire that, so long as this Government remain in power, our commitment to a strong defence of Britain remains totally in place?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that both the Labour party and the Liberal party are committed, by their party conferences, to massive reductions in defence expenditure. Indeed, I understand that the Liberal party is committed to reducing the size of our Army from 160,000 to approximately 70,000. That compares rather unfavourably with the view of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who seeks to oppose any amalgamations during the current exercise.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding British forces in former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Rifkind: British forces continue to make an important contribution to the United Nations humanitarian relief effort in Bosnia, having successfully escorted over 42,000 tonnes of aid since operations began. The events of recent weeks in central Bosnia have demonstrated the dangerous conditions under which our troops are working, and, as I am sure the House will agree, they have reacted to circumstances with outstanding professionalism.

Mr. Winnick: I agree with the' latter part of the Secretary of State's response: there is undoubtedly much admiration in the House and in the country for the way in which British forces have operated in the former Yugoslavia.
However, would there not be a case for the rules of. engagement to be changed—obviously that would have to be done by the Security Council—so that allied troops could assist civilians fleeing terror and destruction? Is it not the case—this is no reflection on the Secretary of State—that, to a large extent, even humanitarian relief often depends on Serbian and Croatian commanders, who are carrying out what can only be described as a murderous pogrom against the Muslim population in Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: We do not believe that the current rules of engagement need to be changed to assist the United Nations in its humanitarian efforts. Clearly, if a new mandate were to be considered for United Nations personnel, that would open up the question whether the rules of engagement were appropriate. However. it is crucial to emphasise that we do not consider it sensible or desirable that the United Nations should be asked to adopt a combat role in Bosnia. United Nations personnel are doing a superb job, saving many tens of thousands of lives at present. That in itself is justification for their presence.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend confident that the rules of engagement are sufficient to protect the safe havens which the United Nations has declared should be safe havens? Are they truly safe, or can they he made truly safe, for the civilian population?

Mr. Rifkind: The Secretary-General is at present seeking to put together a number of forces from various contributors who would be present within the safe havens. The United Kingdom has said that its contribution will be to continue to help deal with the situation in the Vitez area in central Bosnia, where there is tremendous tension between Croats and Muslims. We believe that the current rules of engagement are suitable for the task that British forces have been asked to do.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 14 January, when announcing the deployment of our naval task force in the Adriatic, he said that his overriding concern was for the safety of our forces, and added:—
the provision of artillery in particular"—
in particular—
will enable us to respond to attacks"?—[Offcial Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1058.]
Will he now confirm that at, the very time when our troops in Bosnia are, in the Secretary of State's words, "facing the greatest risk", he has withdrawn the RFA Argus, which is loaded with the same artillery? Does he accept that his meek surrender to Treasury penny-pinching could well put our troops in Bosnia at risk?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman gets sillier as every day passes. As the decision to transfer the artillery back to the United Kingdom was taken on the advice of the Chief of the General Staff and not at the request of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he might have chosen to check his facts before making such a fool of himself.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned. Friend agree that it is not only the soldiers escorting the convoys that come under shellfire and sniping but also the civilian truck drivers, who are sent out to Bosnia by the Crown Agents based in my constituency? Four truck drivers have now been awarded the MBE in the Queen's

birthday honours. Would my right hon. and learned Friend extend to them the same tributes that we have extended to our soldiers?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarkable contribution that has been made not only by uniformed personnel but by many thousands of civilians—including many British citizens—who have done a superb job, often in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances, to provide food, medical aid and other forms of assistance to people who so desperately need them.

Yugoslavia

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any further review of Britain's defence commitments in the light of Britain's peacekeeping role in former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Rifkind: Britain's armed forces have a number of overseas commitments, which they are well placed to meet. We keep such commitments, and the forces required to meet them, under review.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the excellent role played by Britain's superb forces in the former Yugoslavia shows that Britain's future military role will increasingly be as part of a United Nations peacekeeping or even peacemaking force? In view of that, is it not time that the Government recognised that, in future, there will be little demand from the United Nations peacekeepers for crippling expensive submarines and nuclear weapons?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would be very unwise to believe that Britain's future military requirements will be limited to some form of gendarmerie role on behalf of the United Nations. Of course our contribution to that role is important, but we must retain the capacity for high-intensity conflict, because, as we have seen twice in the past 12 years, there could be attacks on British interests which require a response not only with manpower but with sophisticated equipment. Submarines have played a very viable role for the United Kingdom over the years.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, during the past two years, Britain's slefence commitments have increased, not decreased, and that there is a good argument for a general review of Britain's defence commitments around the world to ensure a direct match of commitments and resources?

Mr. Rifkind: I accept the principle that my hon. Friend has enunciated, but I do not accept his description of what has happened over the past three years. The single biggest change over that period has been the reduction of our forces in Germany from 60,000 to about 30,000. That is a far greater reduction in our commitment than any relatively modest contribution we have made in Bosnia, Cambodia and one or two other territories elsewhere.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of our experience in Bosnia, is there not a case for puttinǵ the United Nations interventionist role on a formal footing, with financial backing, in properly established headquarters? If so, who would be prepared to pay, given that the major contributing nations are in an adverse financial position?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to. proper military headquarters in New York to ensure that the United Nations can properly co-ordinate and plan the substantially increased number of military operations for which it is responsible, he makes an important point. The large increase in United Nations activities means that the small staff at present responsible for those matters find it almost impossible to carry out their responsibilities in a proper and coherent fashion.

Bosnia (Ambush)

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in equipping AFVs deployed in Bosnia with state-of-the-art surveillance systems to counter threats of ambush; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley: The armoured vehicles deployed in Bosnia are already fitted with sophisticated surveillance systems, but we keep the situation under review to ensure that the personnel deployed have the equipment most appropriate to their role and environmental conditions.

Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that Pilkington Optronics in my constituency designed and fitted the thermal observation and gunnery sight—TOGS—to the Chieftain and Challenger tanks, which performed so well in the Gulf war? Is he further aware that Pilkington has offered to fit the TOGS system to the Scimitar AFV, which is currently deployed in Bosnia, at a very reasonable price?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; any saving is helpful. The TOGS proposal is one of the ideas considered as part of the life-extension programme for tracked combat reconnaissance vehicles. We already have very sophisticated equipment in them, including thermal image sights, which can be fitted on top of the commander's sight. Troops are also issued with image intensifying night vision goggles. The Scimitar family of vehicles will be upgraded in due course.

Trident Refit

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination he has made of the decision-taking process on the Trident refitting contract with a view to improving the consistency and orderliness of such processes.

Mr. Rifkind: The issues involved are complex, and involve significant sums of public money. A wide range of factors bear on the issues, and I am satisfied that the assessment is being properly conducted.

Mr. Tyler: Is that not the most extraordinarily complacent reply? It is 13 months since the bids had to be in from the two yards. Before Christmas, the Minister of State told me from the Dispatch Box that the decision would be out in a matter of days, perhaps weeks. The loyal work forces at Rosyth and Devonport have waited patiently for months. They are on tenterhooks—their livelihoods are at stake and their families do not know what will happen. The whole economy of that area of Scotland and the south-west of England has been waiting for this hide-and-seek game to end.

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I make no apology for the time that it is

taking to reach the proper conclusion. That time has already resulted in savings to the taxpayer and the Royal Navy that are likely to be in excess of £250 million, compared to what the original cost of the nuclear refitting was expected to be. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Royal Navy will benefit substantially from those savings, so it is right and proper that we should address those matters in that way.

Mr. Streeter: As someone who has always supported Trident, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the delay in awarding the contract is seriously undermining the morale of my constituents, and holding back the recovery that would otherwise be bursting forth in the south-west? Is he aware of what the people of Rosyth and Plymouth are going through while we await the decision? When will it be made?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that the two companies involved—one in Plymouth and one in Rosyth—have, over the past six months, sent several refinements of their proposals, which inevitably have required time for consideration. Ministers are now considering the conclusions that should be reached, and I hope that an announcement can be made in the near future. It is important that the matters are properly addressed. I am anxious, as is my hon. Friend, to bring the uncertainty to an end.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State must realise that it is now over four months since he announced in a written answer that he planned to continue with two dockyards, but without saying how that would be achieved. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly said, that is causing dismay and increasing division between Scotland and the south-west of England.
Can the Secretary of State at least say, first, that he will continue a submarine refitting capability at both yards and, secondly, that the yard that does not get the Trident refit will get at least 10 years' guarantee of submarine and surface refitting? It is in the strategic and employment interests of the United Kingdom to keep both yards fully operational.

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares our desire to see a decision on this matter, which hopefully will be possible. I simply do not believe that it is. possible to continue nuclear submarine refitting at both yards. The cost of the Trident work is so substantial that the expenditure required to provide a nuclear submarine refitting capability at both yards would be a gross waste of public funds, and I cannot endorse the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Gallie: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the wisdom of the last four Conservative Secretaries of State for Defence, who assured Rosyth's future based on the successful achievements in the refitting and servicing of Britain's nuclear deterrent fleet?

Mr. Rifkind: Both Rosyth's and Devonport's future are assured, because some time ago we said that, in the interests of ensuring competition and therefore the best benefit to the taxpayer, we proposed to continue with two royal dockyards. I know that that will give great pleasure not only to my hon. Friend but to those who are anxious


to ensure that the taxpayer and the Royal Navy get the. most competitive bids not only for its submarine work but for its surface ship work.

Eurofighter

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the development stage of the Eurofighter project to be completed.

Mr. Aitken: The development stage of Eurofighter 2000 will largely be completed by 1995, when the production stage is due to begin. However, as is usual with new aircraft, some development activity will continue into the early years of production. It is expected that the final phase of the development stage will be completed in 2001.

Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware of the consternation that was caused in the industry when he announced the delays in the programme on 25 February? Will he give the House an explanation of the escalation of the costs that was announced then? How much of that escalation was caused by his Department's late changes to the specification?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair and churlish. The real increase in development costs since we committed ourselves to this phase in 1988 is a little more than 10 per cent. For the project as a whole, it is a little less than 10 per cent. Production costs are all hypothetical at this stage, but a 10 per cent. increase in a project of this complexity and magnitude, although not welcome, is by no means unusual. It is within the normal tolerances. As for the hon. Gentleman's points about delays, those are matters caused by some of the industrial decisions—not Government decisions. The Government could not have done more to support the project whole-heartedly and effectively.

Mr. Martlew: Is not it a fact that 10 per cent. represents £250 million, which will have to come from somewhere else in the defence estimates? Yesterday, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Eurofighter would make its test flight this year. We welcome that. But he was vague on how the work would be shared out between the countries. It looks as if the Royal Air Force will place orders for 50 per cent. of the production. Does that mean that 50 per cent. of the work will be carried out in United Kingdom factories?

Mr. Aitken: On the work-share point, the hon. Gentleman's questions are premature at this stage, because no decisions have yet been reached between the four partners on precisely which numbers will be used in the production phase. Development work-shares were agreed in 1988 and ours was 33 per cent. There is no suggestion that those should change, but, ultimately, they will depend on the final orders placed by each of the partners.

RAF Training Bases

Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in his Department's review of RAF training bases.

Mr. Hanley: The RAF's flying training study is progressing satisfactorily. We are continuing to collate and assess the detailed information gathered from the seven flying training stations under study, and the study team expects to report by the end of the year as planned.

Mr. Harvey: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety that the review is causing in north Devon, where RAF Chivenor is a warmly regarded feature of the local community on which businesses, jobs, schools and other services are heavily dependent? Does he agree that RAF Chivenor is uniquely well suited to provide RAF training on account of its favourable geography, weather patterns and topography? Would it not be the economics of the madhouse to close a base at which £12 million has been spent on modernisation and which, because of its location, is not attractive for alternative commercial uses? On account of its technologically modern state, it could be maintained for years to come at minimal expense.

Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of those factors and, indeed, have discussed the matter with my predecessor. We are in the middle of the study. There is still a great deal of collation of information to come. But all seven of the flying training stations involved in the study are being assessed absolutely equally, taking into account a wide range of factors, including those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, of course, the main factors will be operations, tasking, facilities, costs, manning and meeting the needs of our Royal Air force for the future.

Mr. Wilkinson: In his statement last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that there were significant changes to be implemented in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Naval Reserve. However, in that statement he made no observations about the future of the Maritime Headquarters Unit. No. I Maritime Headquarters Unit is located in my constituency at RAF Northolt and trains there. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the MHU and Royal Auxiliary Air Force have an assured and valued future?

Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As far as I am aware, we have no current plans to change the role of the facilities to which he refers.

Mr. Hardy: As the question did not specify purely flying bases, may I ask the Minister to ensure that there is no further contraction of the RAF training capacity until the Government have ensured that contractors, especially those engaged in technological activity, make proper provision for the maintenance of adequate training so that the service is properly provided for in the future? Will he accept that to do otherwise would be to act in the most short-sighted manner, and we have seen quite enough of that in recent years?

Mr. Hanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all factors are being taken into account, and I cannot add to that at this stage. The review is taking time because it is so comprehensive and, as I say, all factors are being taken into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend consider carefully, in addition to the advantages that the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) mentioned, the role that RAF Chivenor plays in very adverse, including snowy, winter conditions on Exmoor in my constituency rescuing sick people and animals? What implications, if any, will the review have for low-flying training, because


my hon. Friend will be aware from the correspondence files in his Department that that has also caused certain problems?

Mr. Hanley: I am aware of those matters and there is no doubt that RAF Chivenor provides an excellent service. I am also aware, I hasten to add, of a famous thing called the Chivenor gap, of which I had not heard previously but find fascinating. I am looking forward to studying that phenomenon. In other words, everything is being considered and we shall reach a result on the review by the end of the year.

NATO Nuclear Doctrine

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO; and if he proposes to discuss with him NATO's nuclear doctrine.

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet the NATO Secretary-General at a regular meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in the autumn. As is usual on these occasions, a.wide range of Alliance issues will be discussed.

Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it may be time, in the interests of economy and security, to seek greater co-operation between ourselves, the French and the United States? Would it not be consistent with the doctrine of minimum nuclear deterrence to seek to achieve operational arrangements which, while providing a constant nuclear capability for NATO, may be provided at a lower level than at present?

Mr. Rifkind: There are many indications that the French Government are interested in closer dialogue with the United Kingdom on nuclear and other matters of mutual interest. It is right and proper that all the nuclear countries of the NATO alliance—the United States, France and ourselves—should co-operate to the maximum extent possible, and I believe that in the post-cold war situation, Paris is showing more interest in doing that than has perhaps been the case for a number of years.

Mr. Dickens: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will he remind him of the excellent news today that Vickers has won more orders for the excellent Challenger tank, which is very good news indeed? Are we not the inventors of the world, with television having been born out of radar, a British design, and the jet engine, also a British design, having made the world smaller? Let us tell the world that when you buy British, you buy the best.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, and he might have added that our Prime Minister signed that deal with the Sultan of Oman on his visit. That was a great achievement for British sales and British industry.

Infantry Regiments (Manpower)

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the manpower of infantry regiments.

Mr. Hanley: We continue to keep Army manpower under review. While we will make adjustments if necessary

—as we did with the measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 February—we have no current plans for further changes.

Mr. Clarke: May I belatedly congratulate the Minister on his appointment? This is the first opportunity that I have had to do that. He said in yesterday's debate that the time between emergency tours by the Army was 19 months. His statement to that effect appears at column 111 of the Official Report. That is not the figure given to me by members of the infantry battalions and others to whom I have spoken. Will he reconsider the matter, remembering that it has a great effect on the families and personnel involved?
Is the Minister aware of a further problem concerning in-service training because of a shortage of manpower? It seems that in-service training and similar activities are being delayed, so will he conduct an in-depth study into that matter, too?

Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Gentleman warmly for his kind remarks. I confirm the figures that I gave last night in the debate. On the basis of current emergency tour commitments, the average emergency tour intervals for infantry are likely to meet the target of 24 months by 1995. The average emergency tour interval for the current year is 19 months. I stress that that is an average figure—some forces are able to be deployed while some are not; some are reorganising and re-roling, so are not available for use. We aim to reach the target of 24 months soon. With the withdrawal from Belize and the withdrawal of two battalions from Berlin, there will be more forces available for us.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I, too, belatedly congratulate my hon. Friend. Is he aware that there is concern among those who take a genuine interest in such matters that manpower constraints are making it difficult for Britain to meet its international obligations? Will my hon. Friend quietly consider in the weeks ahead rescinding the decision to merge my old regiment, the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own Highlanders and, at a stroke, find a cost-effective solution to those constraints, as well as providing a future for two of the finest infantry regiments of the British Army?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Army is large enough to keep all its commitments following the reduction in threat due to the change in the strategic environment. As we often say, the post-"Options" Army will be smaller but fully manned, well equipped and properly supported. I believe that the House will be proud of the commitments that we shall continue to carry out throughout the world. However, those commitments must be balanced—we cannot, and should not, do everything. We should not put our men and women at unnecessary risk. I have looked at the issue in the past few weeks and believe that Scottish regiments were not treated unfairly in the restructuring process. It was not possible to exempt the Scottish regiments from the inescapable need for certain cuts. I realise that many people with Scottish regimental associations have strong feelings about the restructuring, but equal pain was felt by all regiments—whether Scottish, British, Welsh or Irish.

Dr. Reid: As the Minister embarks on his new portfolio, I plead with him that, if he will not take my advice, he should take the advice expressed. not only by my hon.


Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), but the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and undertake a full defence review specifically to deal with the issues raised about the infantry.
The Minister may wish to ask his civil servants about the following issue. Since the beginning of the operation called "Options for Change", the Government have made a net increase in the number of battalion tasks of 10—an extra two in Northern Ireland, plus one in Bosnia, minus one in Belize, times five—but they have increased the number of infantry battalions by only two. Is it not clear to the Minister, as it is to the Opposition, that the tasks of the infantry cannot be increased by 10 and the numbers by two without creating a mismatch between resources and commitments? As he embarks on his new ministerial position, will the Minister do what his Front-Bench predecessors at the Ministry of Defence refused to do: carry out a genuine review so that we do not place burdens on our soldiers and service men which they cannot meet because they lack resources?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is a friendly soul and I shall willingly take advice from him, except on this matter—for the simple reason that there is no need for a full defence review. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be sitting on the edge of his seat waiting for the White Paper to be published in the next few weeks. I think that even he will be so impressed with that document that he will feel that the need for the review has gone out of the window. We keep Army manpower closely under review—the increase in tasks for existing manpower shows the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces.

Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that one third of all recruits to the armed forces are youngsters under the age of 18? Given the increasing complexity of modern warfare, is it any longer sensible to take on young people with only minimum basic education? Should we not in future consider recruiting only youngsters over the age of 18, thereby avoiding the current problem of sending them to difficult areas—as with, for example, those in my local regiment, the Staffordshires, serving in Bosnia?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to say that some 35 per cent. of Army recruits are under the age of 18. It would put the Army under great stress if we were to restrict recruitment to those over the age of 18; we would lose many talented people to other walks of life. Those under the age of 18 should, with their parents' permission, be given the opportunity to serve in the British forces, one of the best jobs in the world.
With regard to the deployment of young people in the theatres of war, many of those who are under the age of 18 have trained within formed units and if they were not allowed to go with their units, it would not only break up that unit but would be a great disappointment to the young people concerned. However, we shall keep the matter under review.

Future Frigate Project

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the future frigate project.

Mr. Aitken: Negotiations with France and Italy on the future frigate project are proceeding satisfactorily. I am pleased to announce plans to sign a memorandum of

understanding establishing the joint project office in London this summer, subject to agreement being reached on the detailed arrangements for the development of the ship and its weapon systems.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that there should be more urgency about the project, which is the most important European project that we have for anti-air and anti-missile defence for our naval forces which need that protective condom above them in the sky? Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to get the design work for that important project into the work-starved design teams of British shipyards, such as those of Swan Hunter on the Tyne, at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Aitken: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his colourful metaphors, but I agree that this is an important project. I am delighted to hear such robust sentiments from a member of the party which, at its conference, votes for swingeing cuts in defence. However, the hon. Gentleman should regard it as good news that the joint project office is to open later this summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Orme: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending a European Council meeting in Copenhagen.

Mr. Orme: Will the Leader of the House explain why many people on invalidity benefit who have been assisting the very sick, poor and disabled and withdrawing from that voluntary work because of the fear that the Government will attack their benefits? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most vulnerable in our society should not be made to pay for the failure of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Newton: I know of no basis for the fear that the right hon. Gentleman describes. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security we went to some lengths-to try to prevent that difficulty arising and we improved the therapeutic earnings rule, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Social Security will be concerned to ensure that people on invalidity benefit who can do voluntary work while nevertheless fulfilling the legal requirements of the benefit are able and encouraged to do so.

Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate my constituents and all employees of the Jaguar car company, in particular the highly skilled development engineers who so outperformed their foreign counterparts that they won the Le Mans 24-hour, race? Will my right hon. Friend go further and tell people at large that there has been an improvement out of all recognition at Rover, Jaguar and all the other British car assemblers, and that there is now little excuse for buying a foreign car?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with all my hon. Friend's points and I join him in paying tribute to Jaguar's achievement and the achievement of many other British car manufacturers in recent months in bringing about the large increase in car production which, had it gone the other way, we would have been hearing much about from the Opposition; we hear nothing when it goes up. With the British car market now growing, while continental markets are plunging into recession, our industry has revitalised itself and is set to win.

Mr. John Smith: In view of the increasing and widespread public concern about large financial donations—[Interruption.]—about large financial donations from foreign sources to the Conservative party, will the Government now introduce legislation to make such foreign donations illegal?

Mr. Newton: On the assumption that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is riding on the back of the absurd story in The Guardian today, perhaps I should tell him that, within the past hour or so, the Saudi ambassador to the United States of America. whose name was mentioned in that story, has issued a statement to the effect that all the allegations in the article are untrue and totally without foundation, that the meeting that is referred to did not take place, and that neither he nor anyone else connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party or been asked for such donations. Indeed, he is taking legal advice about obtaining a full retraction. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Leader of the House understand that the Conservative party's difficulties arise because the party will not declare the sums that it receives from other people? As we are seeing what money the Conservative party has received, may I take this opportunity to ask whether it received funds from Mr. John Latsis and Mr. Li Ka-Shing?

Mr. Newton: In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's immortal words, he has put something else aside, as I understand it. [Interruption.] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I shall do: I shall start listening to his lectures on this subject when he tells me that he will bring to an end the position in the Labour party in which votes at party conferences can be bought, in which votes in the selection of candidates can be bought, and in which votes even in his election as leader of the party can be bought. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House is in a very bad mood. [Interruption.] Order—all of you.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Leader of the House understand—[interruption.] I know that the Conservative party wants to drown this issue out, but it will not succeed. Does not the Leader of the House understand that the public will have noticed that there has been no denial that Mr. John Latsis, Greek millionaire and supporter of the fascist military junta in Greece, gave money to the Conservative party? Does not he understand the simple and clear principle that it is wrong, and should be illegal, for a British political party to accept large sums of money from people who are not British citizens, do not live here,

do not vote here, and are not part of our democracy? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that simple point?

Mr. Newton: What I understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and believe—[interruption.]—to be a scandal is that a major financer of the Labour party can utter phrases like "No say, no pay." [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour, especially from the Front Benches.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's dealings with the trade unions makes "Jurassic Park" look like a tea party.

Mrs. Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the coming of the summer solstice, the west country is bracing itself for an invasion of new age travellers? Will he ensure that the Conservative party puts on the statute book whatever measures are necessary to ensure that those who opt for an alternative life style do so at their own expense, and not at the expense of the hard-working taxpayer?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know of the plans that the Government have set out, and of our determination to implement them. She may be relieved to note that, at present, most of the new age travellers seem to be on the Opposition Benches.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Seamus Mallon. [Interruption.] lithe House were a little quieter, hon. Members could hear when I called them.

Mr. Mallon: Notwithstanding the importance of Volvo cars and inscribed watches, does the Leader of the House agree that the real moral test of any Government is their care for those in the dawn of life—the young; those in the twilight of life—the aged; and those in the shadows of life—the sick, the poor and the handicapped? Given the Government's predeliction for testing, would the right hon. Gentleman care to subject them to that test? Does he believe that it will show the abysmal failure that most people in the country perceive?

Mr. Newton: Given the improvements that have been made in the health service, in benefits for disabled people and in educational opportunities for young people, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a nerve to ask that question.

Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend's busy schedule allowed him an opportunity to consider the announcement—

Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House is on crack. Get another bed ready.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pickles: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's recent announcement about trials of a side-handled baton for police officers? Does he agree that if the trials are successful, those who daily risk their lives on our streets will deserve our support? If the equipment proves good for the police, will the Government supply it?

Mr. Newton: I agree very strongly. As has been all too evident on some recent occasions, we ask our police to risk


their lives for us every day, and they deserve the protection with which we can provide them. There is no doubt that the standard truncheon does not meet all the needs of modern times, and it is well known to us that police officers have been pressing for more effective alternatives. I know that they, like my hon. Friend, will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that a scientific evaluation of the expandable side-handled baton will be undertaken to test its suitability for trials on the streets.

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: During his busy day, has the Lord President of the Council had an opportunity to purchase an early retirement present for the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)? [Interruption.] If so, will he reveal the words that he has had inscribed on the back of it?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that, because of the noise—I am not sure from which side of the House it came—I did not hear the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Given the reaction, however, I doubt whether I need bother to ask him to repeat it. As for the first part, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his views on the matter clear some weeks ago, and I see no reason to depart from them this afternoon.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful management buy-out at Leyland DAF demonstrates that the Government—and, in particular, our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—were quite right to back a private solution to what was a problem? Does it not also illustrate good, common-sense Conservative policies, as opposed to socialist dogma?

Mr. Newton: Yes. The management buy-outs, first of the vans business in Birmingham and now of the truck business at Leyland, are very good news. They show what can be achieved by working for sound commercial

solutions, rather than the preferred solution of Labour Members—offering open-ended subsidies. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their political views, wish the management buy-out people well for the future success of those companies.

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: I half expected to receive a note this morning from the Leader of the House saying that he would link questions 2 and 3. I assume that before he did that, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would also have to be in the frame.
Will the Leader of the House accept that although all hon. Members welcome the recent reduction in the unemployment figures, that should not hide from us the very high figures associated with structural unemployment in this country? Does he further agree that that high level of structural unemployment represents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way"]—represents a reservoir of economic resources that this country should be using? If he does agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] If he does agree, will he accept that the Government should be introducing an economic and industrial strategy to create jobs, not instigating a further attack on the residual welfare state?

Mr. Newton: May I observe in passing that I am not aware of any practice of linking questions simply because the hon. Members asking them come from different bits of the same city?
Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Gentleman started with, although not with his conclusions. The Government's view is that the right way forward to tackle that important problem is to put in place the proper training schemes, which we believe we have done, and to create the conditions in which British industry can compete and sell its goods, as we manifestly have with the motor industry, which is very important in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country.

M25 (Widening)

Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any application from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the future proposals for the widening of the M25? It seems that a decision may have been made in Cabinet based on information that the Conservative party may lose local election seats. It is time that we had a statement—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Lady's point of order. If a statement was to have been made today, it would have been on the annunciator for us all to see.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG)

That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

Deregulation (No. 2)

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to control the activities of self-financing regulatory authorities.
Last month I sought leave to introduce a Bill to repeal unnecessary rules and regulations which restrict the competitiveness of British industry. Not surprisingly, the Labour party—the guardian angels of red tape—voted me down. Although driven by the same distaste for regulations, this time I seek leave to introduce a Bill to strike a blow at a far more sinister development which not only chokes profitability, but will lead ultimately to economic paralysis.
I am referring, of course, to the emergence of SEFRAs—self-financing regulatory agencies—the most prominent of which are the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. They make the quangos of the 1980s look like cuddly toys and have created an entirely new and additional layer of bureaucracy. For instance, the National Rivers Authority employs 7,500 staff—officials paid out of the public purse.
Let me explain what SEFRAs are and how they work. They were created with the best possible intention by the Government to improve the standards of health, safety, hygiene and pollution. Their detrimental impact cannot, for once, be blamed on Europe so much as on the over-zealousness of our officials in interpreting far beyond what Brussels intended. [Interruption.] I am having great difficulty, Madam Speaker, in hearing myself, so I do not know how my hon. Friends are managing.

Madam Speaker: I am terribly sorry. I can hear the hon. Gentleman very clearly and I am most interested in what he has to say. The rest of the House must come to order so that we may all hear.

Mr. Steen: I am delighted, Madam Speaker, that you are so interested in what I am saying.
The detrimental impact cannot, for once, be blamed on Europe so much as on the over-zealousness of our own officials in interpreting far beyond what Brussels ever intended. It makes one think that we may have a kind of bureaucratic fifth column in the heart of Westminster and Whitehall.
Most SEFRAs are rather modest and small to start with, often set up to carry out what local authorities used to do. But, once established, they grow fast, with a life force of their own. Many of the 2,945 statutory instruments passed in 1991 increased the powers of SEFRAs and their ability to issue licences, serve notices and demand compliance. Today they set targets, issue codes of practice and have become bodies which alone can grant legitimacy.
To do this, they employ armies of officials to make inspections, and only when satisfied will they grant licences. In fact, the modus vivendi of SEFRAs is to create rules and regulations, then employ officials to enforce them, charging the unfortunate victims for inspection and the issue of licences.
Some of the rules have helped us to clean up our act; others are simply an additional form of taxation, authorising individuals to do what they have done previously without charge. I will give some examples.
The National Rivers Authority insists on charging a householder in the Lake district a fee because she collects the water that runs down the side of a mountain. She puts the water in a tank and uses it in her house. She has never been charged before, but she is now charged for collecting the water, because the National Rivers Authority says that the water that she takes for her own use could be used by somebody else if she were not using it.
Then there is a case in Birmingham where a company has a building with a large corrugated roof on which water falls. The water runs off the roof, into a down pipe and into a stream. The National Rivers Authority charges the company for that because, it says, the water will erode the banks of the stream.
There is another example in my own constituency. The Harborn garage has a forecourt into which rain occasionally falls. The water goes down a little conduit under the road into a stream. Never before were the garage owners charged, but now they are charged £60 a year in case any of the water that falls on the forecourt should pollute the stream. It is shameful to charge a small garage in this way.
If individuals do not pay the charges that are heaped on them, they are pursued into the courts. Thousands of lives have been made miserable by the contagious nature of SEFRA-isation. Without licences, all organisations are trapped. They cannot trade, and they are branded as defaulters.
SEFRAs generate their own life force. They produce codes of practice, they enforce. Lifting standards is all very well if the organisations targeted have the resources to pay. During the recession most businesses have contracted, whereas SEFRAs have grown and grown, with more publicly paid staff, more rules, more regulations and more red tape.
The scrap metal industry is worth £3 billion a year and is pursuing environmental objectives, whereby it recycles 99 per cent. of the material that it handles, with 1 per cent. going to landfill. Its problem emanates from an emerging SEFRA—the waste regulation authority—which, in interpreting the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has muddled disposal of waste with recycling and forced on the scrap metal industry a raft of new regulations. Scrapyards have to pay £3,000 for a licence and £8,000 for an inspection. If they want to go out of business and surrender their licence, they have to pay another £3,000. Operators are quitting the business in droves. The result is that there will be more material to landfill and less will be recycled, resulting in additional pollution.
Apart from the ordinary household waste, all other waste is classified as controlled waste. To carry controlled waste, one must have a waste management licence: cost £95. To receive controlled waste, one needs another licence, a waste management licence, which costs £1,800. A

brewery that for years has been sending barley mash, a by-product of the brewing process, to a local farm for pig fodder has been told that it is recycling waste. Under the new regulations, the brewer must pay £95 to transport the stuff to the farm whereas the farmer with his pigs is viewed as a receiver of waste and has to pay £1,800 to receive it. The House can guess the result: the pigs go hungry. Instead of the waste being put to good use, it goes down the drain and, no doubt, helps to pollute the local river.
The most vivid example of creeping SEFRA-isation is encapsulated in the Spanish coffins saga. Unfortunately, 200 to 300 Britons die in Spain each year. Naturally, they are shipped home in Spanish coffins. However, due to European environmental directive 84/360, coffins can be burnt in a crematorium in this country only if they do not contain certain banned substances, such as certain glues. Although Spain is a signatory to the directive, surprise, surprise, it has not got around to enforcing it. That means that when the body arrives at a British crematorium, it is decoffined, as the parlance goes, from the Spanish coffin and then recoffined in a British-made coffin which, surprise, surprise, conforms to EC regulations. The coffin can then be burnt at the crematorium in full compliance with the directive and with the Environmental Protection Act. Britain, as ever, has done its bit in conforming to the regulations. However, when one asks those working at the crematorium what happens to the Spanish coffins, one is told that they are taken out the back and burnt on a bonfire.
That story was related to me by one of the most famous SEFRA-hunters of all time, Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph. It is such bureaucratic absurdities that have prompted me to seek leave to introduce a Bill to curb the creeping growth of SEFRAs and to rein back their power to introduce new and punitive regulations which are doing unnecessary and untold damage. That is apart from their appalling cost which has to be supported by the public purse and which, no doubt, contributes to the nation's £50 billion deficit. In short, our nation's enterprise is being inhibited. Any talk of lifting the burden will have a hollow ring unless something is done about the growth of SEFRAs. That is an important task and I ask the House to give me leave to do something about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Sir Michael Grylls, Sir Michael Neubert, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Donald Thompson, Sir Keith Speed, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mr. Roger Evans.

DEREGULATION (No. 2)

Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to control the activities of self-financing regulatory authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Political Parties (Funding)

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I seek the co-operation of the House in the hope that hon. Members will exercise voluntary restraint on the length of their speeches so that I may call all hon. Members who seek to be called.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That this House records it concern at the revelation that Asil Nadir and his companies made nine separate donations totalling £440,000 to the Conservative Party, which were undeclared in his company accounts and undeclared by the Conservative Party itself; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to endorse the Charter for Party Political Funding published by the Labour Party, in particular its demand that all political parties should publish fully audited accounts which disclose the source of all large donations and should refuse any donations from individuals who are neither British residents nor British nationals, any donations from foreign Governments or their agents and any donations from foreign companies not registered in Britain; and urges Her Majesty's Government to commence proceedings against any company which has made a political donation without declaration under the Companies Act 1985 and to invite all parties to submit their list of company donors to the Department of Trade and Industry to assist in ensuring compliance with company law.
Britain today is a country in turmoil. Its people, perhaps slowly emerging from three long years of recession, feel anxious, beleaguered and insecure in their employment. All too many of them are insecure in the possession of their homes, conscious that there is no such thing as a safe job or a secure profession and increasingly fearful that there are all too few safe streets. The people of our country know that last April they were deceived and their confidence was betrayed by the Government and the party in which they placed their trust. As they gaze with dismay on the failures of the Government, their confidence is further eroded not only by the crass incompetence that they see the Government displaying but by the atmosphere of sleaze and the odour of corruption that they exude.
For years, Conservative Governments have listened to no one. For years, they have used the power and patronage of government, at least in part, for party political advantage. This is a Government who have ceased to be able to tell the difference between the country's interests and their own—perhaps they have even ceased to believe that one can be distinguished from the other. For years they steadily placed, honoured and promoted those who saw things in the same narrow compass, until it would appear that there is no one to blow the whistle, no one to see the line of proprieties being crossed and no one to call a halt.
There is a remarkable coincidence between the Government's placement of honours and donations to the Conservative party. The top ten corporate donors—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I should say at the outset that I cannot force right hon. and hon. Members to listen, but what I can enforce is that whoever has the floor during this debate will be heard, and I hope that my cautionary remarks will be taken on board by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: Since 1979, the top 10 corporate donors to the Conservative party are as follows. United Biscuits has given more than £1 million and the honours received were one peerage and one knighthood; Hanson, £852,000, two peerages; Taylor Woodrow, £837,362, which is remarkable precision, one peerage and one knighthood. British and Commonwealth gave about £823,000—I shall leave out the odd figures—and received one peerage; P and O gave £727,000 and received one peerage and three knighthoods; Glaxo gave £600,000 and received two knighthoods; Trafalgar House gave £590,000 and received one peerage and one knighthood. There is a remarkable coincidence in the placement of honours and the placement of money—

Mr. Gary Streeter: While the hon. Lady is giving us the figures, will she tell us how much the National and Local Government Officers Association spent on its misleading and grubby advertising campaign at the last general election?

Mrs. Beckett: The money that NALGO spent on its election campaign—or in the campaign that it ran at the time—[Interruption ] I am quoting the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton (Mr. Streeter). It was his description, not mine. That money will be found declared in NALGO's accounts, which is more than can be said for many of the donations to the Conservative party.
As I was saying, given the placement of people and the award of honours, there seems to be no one who will tell the Conservative party when to call a halt.

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Not for the moment.
How else can we explain the Treasury's extraordinary decision to pay the then Chancellor of the Exchequer's legal fees in a private lawsuit? How else could the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—since promoted to be Secretary of State for the Environment—have thought it uncontroversial to allow a major company to pay to have his grounds improved? How else can we have reached the position where it is so widely believed as to be no longer a matter of much remark that, as the list that I quoted shows, honours given in the name of the Crown are regularly assumed to be purchased by financial contributions to the Conservative party? How else can it ever have been thought—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not persist. The right hon. Lady is making it clear that for the moment she is not willing to give way.

Mrs. Beckett: How else can it ever have been thought acceptable that the party of government publishes no proper, independently audited accounts, acknowledges that more than half its funds come from sources it is not


prepared to reveal and now admits under pressure that a large part of its campaign to secure the election was funded from overseas?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell me where the money came from?

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. Does the Labour party ever accept money with strings attached—yes or no?

Mrs. Beckett: No, certainly not. [Interruption.] I have given the answer.
How else can it be thought acceptable for the party of government to react as it did for months, with complete indifference, to the discovery that it was paid almost £500,000 in a fashion which breached company law by someone now a fugitive from British justice?
In his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs the other day, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—I am pleased to see him here today because I hope that he will answer the questions that he did not answer in that Committee—said:
I am not in the business of looking for ways round the laws of the country",
as, of course,Mr. Nadir did in the donations he made to the Conservative party. However, perhaps I can draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to a story that appeared in Scotland a year or so ago.
James Sneddon, the former director of the Conservative Board of Finance Scotland, who is no doubt well known to Conservative Members, said:
The attraction of the British United Industrialists arrangement"—
this is for the payment of donations to an organisation outside the Conservative party—
is the exclusion of any disclosure of such a payment as a political donation in the statutory accounts of your company.
That is the advice that the gentleman gave to those whom he hoped to seduce into giving money to the Conservative party through that indirect route, a way around the law. It was advice being given by the Conservative party about the way around the law.

Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. Lady please tell me why a man who took £750,000 of Maxwell pensioners' money without any real work being done in exchange is given the honour of sitting on the Labour Front Bench in another place?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation about the circumstances in which someone was employed. I am not responsible for the employment of someone in a company in which, as I understand it, he did work for which he properly received remuneration. The hon. Gentleman cannot show that the Labour party received money illegally from companies, as we now know that the Conservative party has.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: In a moment; I want to say a little more about British United Industrialists. I do not want to leave the point before I have made the matter clear.
Advice was given by the Conservative party that it was a means of companies paying money to the party without

shareholders being told. I hear some Conservative Back Benchers saying that the organisation does not exist. I understand that it may have been wound up but, for many years, Conservative Members asserted that donations made in that way were nothing to do with them. Indeed, in a debate in another place not so very long ago—in 1989, I believe—the then treasurer of the Conservative party implied, and may even have stated, that such an organisation was not a means of channelling money into the Conservative party.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: Just a moment; I am about to give the hon. Gentleman some information that I know he wants.
Despite the denial by the Conservative party in the House of Lords and for many years outside, when talking of indirect means the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said:
British United Industrialists has been mentioned—everyone understands the role of the recipient and realises that a large proportion of the funds paid to it are passed to the Conservative party. There is complete openness and accountability."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1989; c. 7.]
Conservative Members may say that that organisation did not exist, but it did, and it was a means of channelling money to the Conservative party.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall say a little more about breaches of the law rather than about the implications.
Other breaches of the law occur among those who support and give money to the Conservative party.

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The Financial Times revealed—

Mr. Shaw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. I understand that he will seek to catch my eye later, so he might do one of two things for which I asked earlier: he might at least listen.

Mrs. Beckett: The Financial Times revealed that in 1990 a company called Sovereign Leasing made a donation of £100,000 to the Conservative party. It failed to declare the payment in its accounts, thus breaching the law. The donation came to light only because the company was taken over by the Bank of Austria, which presumably had slightly higher standards.
There is also on record a company called Hartley Investment Trust. In the run-up to the 1987 general election that company gave £167,000 to the Conservative party, which was the largest corporate donation to the Conservative party ever recorded—so far, at any rate. That company is breaking the law. It should have filed accounts for the year ending March 1991 by the end of April 1992, and for the year ending March 1992 by the end of April 1993. It has failed to do so. That company is chaired by Alan Lewis, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—the chairman of the 1922 Committee and a member of the Conservative party's board of finance—is a non-executive director. So let us hear less from the Conservative party about the people who legally give money to the Labour party and declare their donations.

Mr. James Clappison: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The background to the way in which the Conservative party receives its money is the reason why we have proposed a charter for political party funding, to apply to all political parties in this country. However the issue may have arisen, we believe that it is right that such a charter should now be introduced, but from the evidence so far it appears singularly unlikely that the Government have either the will or the guts to do that.
The presence on the Government Front Bench of the Secretary of State for Employment is a clear sign of how the Government propose to handle the debate—and on how they have handled the matter from the beginning, when it was first revealed that the Conservative party had taken money illegally, in secret and from overseas. The Conservatives say nothing about the way in which they are funded—

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: All they do is talk about the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions.

Mr. Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to take a point of order.

Mr. Ashby: The suggestion has been made, Madam Speaker, that Conservative Members of Parliament have acted illegally. That is a most dreadful slur on Conservative Members, and the fact is—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of Members may not be listening as carefully as I am listening. I have been listening most carefully, and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is talking about the corporate structure of the Conservative party. I ask hon. Members at least to give a hearing to the Front-Bench speakers from both sides. Indeed, I insist that they do so. If hon. Members listened a little more carefully, they might hear a little more clearly what is going on.

Mrs. Beckett: We already know how Conservative Members will respond to the debate.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: Not for a minute.
Conservative Members will respond as they respond to every criticism or concern, no matter how well founded or by whom expressed. First, they bluster that it is an outrage that they should be criticised at all. Then they say that all the comment is misplaced and results from ignorance or malice. Finally, they assert, as they are asserting today, that no matter how flimsy or non-existent the evidence, their critics are not merely as bad as they but far worse, and hence should say nothing at all.
The trouble is that Conservative Members probably believe that. It was said of the inhabitants of the Nixon White House at the time of Watergate that part of their problem was that they had become so out of touch with general expectations about standards of behaviour and what was acceptable in political life that they thought that everyone was behaving in the same way as they were but was just not being honest about it.
My suspicion that that is the attitude of the Conservative party is reinforced by some information that came my way on Sunday courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). At the end of

last week, I am told, the companies division of the Department of Trade and Industry sent a request to Companies house for the civil servants there to go through the files of 12 of the late Robert Maxwell's companies to see whether they could unearth any undeclared donations to the Labour party. I hope that that means that we will at least be spared in this debate the dubious proposition advanced by the chairman of the Conservative party that it is no concern of the Government whether or not companies obey company law.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I must tell the Secretary of State that I find it a somewhat doubtful manoeuvre that civil servants should be asked to do the Conservative party's dirty work. The Conservatives have every right to seek information from Companies house, but why do they not send along someone from the Conservative party and pay a search fee like everyone else?

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The Labour party's position is simple and clear: every year we publish independently audited accounts. They are reported and debated in full at our annual conference.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear this.
Much of our funding comes, as the world knows, from the trade unions affiliated to our party. Indeed, that is so well known that the Conservative party in government has made repeated attempts over the past 14 years to reduce the funds and remove, if it could and at the very least restrict, the Labour party's access to those funds. In my opinion, that in itself is a rather dangerous use of political power for partisan, party political advantage. That is the kind of thing at which we raise our eyebrows when it happens in third world countries.
Our relationship with the trade unions is known, public and voluntary. It is governed by the Labour party's rules and constitution and by those of the affiliated trade unions. It is also rigidly controlled by law and supervised by a special officer of the courts. There is no question of a casual disregard for trade union law as there evidently is for company law.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: Six million trade unionists voluntarily pay political levies and 4·5 million of them belong to unions affiliated and contributing to the Labour party. Incidentally, they are British—

Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?

Mr. Rod Richards: Give way.

Mrs. Beckett: No, I have not finished—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It is pretty obvious, even to someone as thick-skinned as me, that the right hon. Lady is not giving way. Therefore, hon. Members should not persist when that is made clear.

Mrs. Beckett: Those trade unionists live here and vote here and their interests are bound up with the future and well-being of Britain. They have no other axe to grind and no other interests to serve.
As it happens, the income that we receive from the trade unions is today a declining share of the Labour party's income. Taking the position overall, in 1991 they contributed just over 50 per cent. of the Labour party's income. By a remarkable, although unfortunate coincidence, more than 50 per cent. of the income of the Conservative party in election year came from undeclared sources.
The trade unions contributed just over £7 million to our general election campaign" 68 per cent. of those funds. The Conservative party apparently received £7 milli on in overseas donations alone for its election campaign—that is the heart of the matter. I say "apparently" because, although the former director of the Conservative party's board of finance, Major-General Wyldbore-Smith, has admitted as much, and its former treasurer, Lord McAlpine, has said on the record that money was paid to the Conservative party through "tons" of offshore and overseas accounts, none of this information is properly in the public domain.
The British public had no idea, when they cast their votes just over a year ago, that the money for all the seductive and untruthful advertisements attacking the Labour party came, in secret, from outside these islands.

Mr. Richards: The Labour party's accounts for 1991 show an entry of £228,000 accredited to high-value donor activity. Would the right hon. lady tell us who the donors were and how much each paid?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman can find that information, as he said, in the Labour party's published accounts for 1991. That is the sum total of high-value donations that the Labour party received; it is half of what the Conservative party received from one man alone.
The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that we are not going to accept the total double standards of the Conservative party in this matter. Almost every penny of the money that the Labour party receives is identified by organisation—because most of it comes from organisations and fund raising. We do not give the name of every pensioner who sends us a tenner, or the name of the school caretaker who writes to me every month and donates the tiny sums that he raises for the Labour party. If the Conservative party tells us who pays even half of the funds it receives, we will certainly publish the names of our contributors.
It is because of all this that we have proposed and published a charter for party political funding. One of our main proposals is that every political party should publish properly audited accounts, refuse donations from people who are neither British residents nor British nationals, and decline ever to take money from foreign Governments or their agents.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Conservative party has a rule that it does not take money from foreign Governments, despite the many, many rumours to the contrary. It is not clear to me, however, from the reports that I have received of the right hon. Gentleman's evidence when exactly that rule came into force.

Mr. Riddick: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Hon. Members: Name him.

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later in the debate. He ought to contain himself for the moment because it seems to me that the right hon. Lady is not prepared to give way to him.

Mrs. Beckett: It is not clear to me when exactly that rule came into force.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to give way to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make a clear statement on this matter.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way in just a second.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's evidence to the Select Committee was that such a rule now exists. It is not clear to me that he said clearly to the Select Committee when it came into force. Will he tell us, now, when it came into force?

Sir Norman Fowler: It has always existed; it exists now and has always existed. Will the right hon. Lady, now that she has raised this question, dissociate herself from the comments that she made this morning about this totally unsubstantiated story about the Saudi Arabian royal family? She has slurred that family. Will she now withdraw her comments?

Mrs. Beckett: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is at the Dispatch Box. I want to hear what she has to say—whether the House wants to or not.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield should re-read his copy of The Guardian. I see no cause for, and I do not have the slightest intention of, withdrawing what I said. What I said was clear and specific.
Serious allegations have been made—not by me—that the Conservative party took money from agents on behalf of foreign potentates. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, other allegations have been made that the Conservative party took money from agents of foreign Governments. Those allegations are important and serious and should be discussed. I said that they should be denied if they were untrue. The right hon. Gentleman has denied them, so what is he complaining about?

Sir Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the allegations made in The Guardian this morning are totally untrue and that her comments, like much of her speech so far, are simply rumourmongering on her part?

Mrs. Beckett: There has conspicuously been no answer to other questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by people such as John Latsis and others, and I shall come to that in a moment. The reason why the rumours exist and the stories are—[Interruption.] I will not withdraw.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.

Mrs. Beckett: The reason why the allegations have been made goes to the heart of the debate. The Conservative party will not tell the people of the United Kingdom where it got the money. When Conservative Members tell us that, there will be no need, no cause and, presumably, no further rumours.
Before the last general election, when the Prime Minister was, as he puts it, "batting for Britain" on a two-day visit to Hong Kong at the expense of the British taxpayer, he devoted a large chunk of his time to batting for the Conservative party, attending a dinner at which large sums were raised for his election campaign. One of those said to have been present is Li Ka-Shing, who is a close associate of the Chinese Government. Many of those said to have been present are reported to have contributed substantially to Tory party funds on that occasion and others. That must, self evidently, have been at least without the disapproval of the Chinese Government and it has been alleged that it was at least partly with money to which they gave their consent. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Box is not the responsibility of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friends are concerned that information has been passed from the Box on what they regard as a party political matter.
It has been said that one of those present is a large contributor to Conservative party funds. I find it a rich irony that money was given to the Conservative party certainly without the disapproval of the Chinese Government.
The Labour party has frequently been accused without there being the slightest word of truth in it. I hear Conservative Back Benchers making such comments today, although I notice that they do not have the guts to stand up and say it. The Labour party has often been accused of benefiting from what used to be called Moscow gold.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to come clean about trade union contributions to the Labour party. Would she kindly tell the House about the massive contributions that the trade unions make to marginal constituencies in which trade union officials work full time during election campaigns? How much did that cost and is it fully declared?

Mrs. Beckett: The problems of Conservative Members are, first, that they assume, as I said earlier, that what they are doing must be what everyone else is doing and, secondly, that they do not understand how the structure of the Labour party works—[Interruption.] There are strict rules about how much funding and support can be given by trade unionists to any constituency and any constituency party.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: No. I am in the middle of a passage. As I was saying, the suggestion that the Labour party receives money from overseas has always been described in thrilling accents as Moscow gold. The notion that Chinese communists give consent to funding of the Tory election campaign would be hilarious if it were not serious.
Of course, the Prime Minister's much reported visit to Hong Kong is not an isolated example. My hon. Friend

the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) obtained through parliamentary questions—[Interruption.]—therefore, the information was extracted with difficulty from the Government—has shown that between 1988 and 1991 there were no fewer than 35 ministerial visits at taxpayers' expense to Hong Kong, of which 16 certainly involved party political activity by the Ministers in question, and a further three probably did.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way now?

Mrs. Beckett: No.
Apart from the Prime Minister's visit and the money that was raised from Hong Kong, other allegations have repeatedly been made about a variety of donations, some suggest from Dubai and others suggest from Saudi Arabia and so on.
But I say again that the heart of the matter is that such allegations are made and they can be made because of the secrecy that surrounds the source of the Tory party's funds. In election year it spent £26 million.

Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

Mrs. Beckett: I notice that Conservative Members always rise to their feet bellowing when we mention the word "secrecy". I wonder why.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Madam Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He has risen about a dozen times. If the right hon. Lady does not wish to give way, he must resume his seat. Does the right hon. Lady wish to give way? No.

Mrs. Beckett: As I was saying—I am anxious for the House to hear it—in election year the Conservative party spent £26 million. Of that, £15 million was from sources unknown. The Government's case is that none of this matters because those who give such large sums secretly to the Tory party do so without reward or even the expectation of reward, out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.
It must be a touching scene. Picture, for example, the famous meal in Hong Kong or the lunch held in Downing street just before the election. The talk turns to the shocking state of Britain. So poor, it cannot fund the Conservative party to run a decent election campaign. I wonder whether the Prime Minister allowed a small, brave, manly sob to cross his lips; a friendly arm round his shoulders, "My dear boy, don't say another word. What is a million pounds here or there to me?"
There is no doubt that Conservative Members will have to eat all those harsh words that they have said over the years about do-gooders. There they are exposed in the ranks of their own friends doing good for the sake of it and, in classic fashion, doing it by stealth.
What is truly remarkable about the Government's version of events is that it is the overseas contributors in particular who understand that they will receive no reward except in heaven for their noble gesture. That is remarkable because we know that it has not always been so clearly understood by some nearer to home, who should in theory be more familiar with the way in which these things work.
Lord King is often described as the ultimate insider. He is the man who successfully persuaded the Government to privatise British Airways, from which he, it would be fair to say, has profited enormously. One would think that he must have understood the delicacy of the relationship between donations to Tory party funds and political decision making. But after all those years of close association, he understood so little that he actually withdrew funding a year or so ago, linking that withdrawal explicitly and publicly to a disagreement over Government policy as it affected British Airways.
Indeed, one almost gets the impression from a report in The Guardian on Monday of a reported conversation between the Prime Minister and Mr. Gorbachev that the Prime Minister forgot for a sheer microsecond, because he is said to have mentioned to Mr. Gorbachev that he was raising the matter because he had promised Lord King that he would. even though British Airways did not give money to the Tory party any more. Of course, as the Prime Minister and his colleagues have explained, that has no relevance as it does not make any difference whether or not money is given to the Tory party.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: The right hon. Lady will recall the explosive issue of routes to Tokyo and slots at Heathrow, when British Airways did not get what it wanted despite the money it paid to the Tory party—[Interruption]—which surely proves that one cannot buy influence. Does she agree that that proves that influence cannot be bought from the Tory party?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear—[interruption]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I heard the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but what I heard of his remarks was well worth hearing.
The Prime Minister said last week that companies donated money to the Tory party because British business
believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs"—[Official Report, 17 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 990.]
Again, those who might be expected to be aware that that was the only reason for giving money to the Conservative party do not always seem to realise it.
During the Guinness dispute with Distillers, Ernest Saunders got quite the wrong end of the stick. As he said on television:
One of them, a very senior figure … said he noticed we did not contribute to the Conservative Party and when were we going to … I think there were three occasions during the period … when it … came up, not in any way as a threat. But it came up sufficiently for me to realise that if we were going to go on rolling, I would have to put this matter to the board and our policy would have to be re-thought.
The interviewer asked Mr. Saunders what he thought the comment had meant and he replied—[interruption] I am sure that Conservative Members want to hear the reply, which was:
I took it … to indicate that if one was going to need political access at the highest level, and political support, then an ongoing … relationship which involved contributions, would have to be part of the agenda.
We now know that he was just being reminded of the wonderful opportunities for charitable giving. It all makes a truly amazing story, some might even say an incredible one. Of course, that is just what it is—incredible, literally beyond belief. It is no longer tolerable that the party of

government should take such large sums of money secretly and refuse to reveal to the British people whence they come.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that the two cases where the evidence is at its clearest—Sovereign Leasing and Asil Nadir—came about through extraneous circumstances, that is, the receivership and the take-over of the company? So is it not likely that there are bodies buried all over the place? Surely it is right in a democracy that the governing party should come clean and show us where those bodies are.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in his observation that most of the matters of which we know have emerged only incidentally and the Conservative party has not revealed the source of the money.
What is infinitely more serious than the award of honours—itself a minor scandal to which I have referred—is the influence that such secret donations buy on the policy of the British Goverment. In 1990 and in 1991, when debating the Finance Bill, we raised the issue of the generous tax treatment of offshore trusts. We said that the costs to the British taxpayers of such measures were estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion, and sought to persuade the Government to make a change of policy. First, the Government poured scorn on the figures. They then refused to make a change. Finally, they claimed in 1991 to have completely resolved the matter. That case was not accepted by independent commentators and accountants.
I wonder whether it would have been so readily accepted by the British press if it had known that it was through such trusts and accounts that money, which at the time the Tories desperately needed, was being channelled into Tory party funds from overseas. Similarly, the tax treatment of investors not domiciled in Britain makes this country, together with countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland, one of the most generous in the world to the seriously rich.
Ministers boast of Britain being a tax haven. This year's Finance Bill further loosened the law on tax avoidance for those with available accommodation in the United Kingdom who may not now need to be taxed as residents. Meanwhile, the Government's utterly incompetent management of our economy has left us in debt up to our ears, and Ministers are attacking the unemployed, those with disabilities and pensioners. Those who give the Conservative party money are benefiting at the expense of those who have only votes to give.
Other questions about the effects of the process on Government policy are bound to arise. Why do we not ban tobacco advertising, as all medical advice suggests that we should? Is it because of the money that tobacco companies give to the Tory party—and at what cost to the British taxpayer through the health service? Why does the British taxpayer pay for an army training facility in Dubai when swingeing cuts are being made in defence expenditure? Is it, as has been alleged, as a quid pro quo because the Sultan of Dubai donates to Tory party funds?

Mr. Ashby: That is sleaze.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is sleaze.
Why have the Government so singularly failed to police the Companies Acts? Even more outrageous, why does the Tory party advise companies on how to get round the


existing legislative curbs and make donations to the Tory party by the back door so that their shareholders are kept in ignorance of what is being done? We know that it has recently done so.
The policies of Britain's Government should be decided by what is in the interests of the people of Britain and should never be subjugated to what is in the interests of the Tory party. If that is not happening, what do the Government have to hide? Why do they not publish full accounts? Why do they not adopt our charter proposals, which are simple and straightforward? I think that Conservative Members have forgotten that this is not the first time that the Government have had the opportunity to clean up their act.
In January 1989 the House of Lords carried an amendment to put the treatment of donations by companies on much the same footing as the treatment of donations by trade unions to the Labour party. That amendment was rejected in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield—who has made a lot of noise today, but all from a sedentary position—was the man who moved to reject the amendment. He said that the issue would have to be placed on an annual general meeting agenda, would be a nuisance and shareholders could get rid of directors if they chose. He said in Committee:
That is why I believe that it would be wrong in principle to clutter the agenda of annual general meetings in this way"—[Official Report, Standing Committee, 16 May 1989; c. 8.]
What an important consideration—a major and terribly worrying matter—that it would be wrong in principle for shareholders to be bothered with the little matter of whether their company gives hundreds of thousands of pounds of their money to the Conservative party, with or without their knowledge!
The suspicion unquestionably exists that, if the Conservative party will not reveal from where it obtains more than 50 per cent. of its money—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party does not."] We reveal from where we obtain almost every single penny that we receive. More than 50 per cent. is undeclared, secret, large parts of it from overseas. If the Conservative party refuses to make that declaration, the suspicion must arise that the damage that would be done to the Conservative party by the British people finding out from where it obtains its money is even worse than the damage that is being done today by secrecy.
The call for reform comes not only from the Government's political opponents, but from within the ranks of the Conservative party itself. The Conservative party's organisation, the Charter Movement, says:
The Conservative party should not be financed from abroad. It should not be financed by or on behalf of foreign governments. It should not be financed by those who have no vote in United Kingdom elections. It should not be financed in a furtive way.
Those are the words of the constituents and members of the Conservative party and they would be ashamed if they saw the way in which their representatives are behaving in the House of Commons today.
Lord McAlpine said on British television the other evening that he did not know that Asil Nadir was, as he put it, a crook. But if his donations had been publicly

declared from the beginning, it is highly probable that word would have got back about the questions being asked.
There is in all this a terrible danger for the health and well-being of democracy in Britain, a danger of which Conservative Members have no inkling or understanding. If the British people come to believe that the very processes of democracy are being insidiously suborned, to their existing disillusion with the blatant casual betrayal of all the promises that the Government made them at the election might be added that deep corrosive cynicism that, wherever it is found, saps public confidence in democracy and creates profound public unease.
This is a shabby Government, a deceitful Government, a Government unworthy of the trust that the British people placed in them last year. Their weaknesses and deceits permeate and disfigure the very fabric of British life. It is time that they went.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not it an ancient tradition in the House and in the country that the civil service is non-political and apolitical? During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), eight civil servants sitting in the Box have been passing notes to the Minister on political points. Is not that an example of the stinking corruption of the Government and do not you, Madam Speaker, have the power to remove civil servants who are being tainted by such an example?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give credibility to what he has just said. We must bear in mind the fact that those to whom he refers cannot answer for themselves.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand perfectly that those who serve the Government cannot answer for themselves. That is all the more reason why they themselves should make it clear that they are not associated with the Government's political fortunes. If you, Madam Speaker, have no power to remove them and if the Government do not have the decency to remove those civil servants from temptation, might not it be better if the civil servants took their own action to protect their own order?

Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'believes that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of democratic political parties in this country; records its concern at the purchase by trade unions of votes in the election of the Labour Party leadership, the selection of candidates and of votes on policy at Labour's Party Conference sufficient to secure binding commitments; and calls upon the Labour Party to end the control over its policy, organisation and leadership wielded by a small number of trade union leaders.'.
I have been in this House for about 17 years, but I do not believe that I have ever heard such a shabby, irresponsible, miserable speech. What a waste of an Opposition day this is. Gone suddenly are the demands by the right hon. Lady for debates on public expenditure, Bosnia and unemployment. It is amazing what a little good news will do. The right hon. Lady calls herself the deputy Leader of the Labour party. I believe that she will grow to


be quite ashamed of her speech, which was riddled with rumour, innuendo and smear. She referred to an atmosphere of sleaze. The only atmosphere of sleaze that exists after her speech is to be found among Opposition Members.
Why are we debating political funding today? I know the answer. From the depths of Walworth road has come some rather bad news. The general election defeat has left the Labour party with the most serious financial crisis in its history. I hear someone say that that is not true. I have here the report of the national executive committee of the Labour party, which says:
The general election defeat has left the Labour party with probably the most serious financial crisis in its history.
Now we know why we are having this debate. The Labour party wants to get its paws on the public purse. It wants the taxpayer to bail out its sinking ship. Enough of the pretence. That is really what this debate is all about. It is about the Labour party's desire to have state funding of political parties. But the confidence trick is exposed for what it really is—just a ruse by that party to get its hands on taxpayers' money. That is the party's secret agenda.
The saddest aspect of this debate so far is the willingness of the main Opposition party to strike at the heart of our political system and our democracy. They are trying, by a series of slurs and innuendos, to bring our democracy into disrepute. In recent years they have not only opposed the Conservative Government but sought to undermine the very foundations of our political system. In doing so, they destroy their own credibility. They now attack everything. They do not have policies any more; they just manufacture political smears.
Let me give some examples. Despite the words of the Lord President at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the right hon. Lady maintained the allegation contained in The Guardian of this morning, which is now being exposed as a slur. The allegation has been shown to be completely without foundation. A statement issued earlier today, which was referred to by the Lord President, made it clear not only that no such meeting as had been alleged took place but that neither Prince Bandar Bin Sultan nor anyone connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party, directly or indirectly, or has been asked for such donations. Why, then, did not the right hon. Lady withdraw that disgraceful imputation?

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I will give way later.
In her speech, the right hon. Lady sought not only to uphold the credibility of that baseless allegation, but to raise a number of other unsubstantiated allegations. I believe that Labour Members will fail in their attempt, because the integrity of our system shines through all that they say.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat; the Secretary of State is not giving way now.

Mr. Hunt: Like so many good things in this country, that integrity is recognised everywhere else in the world, but not on the Opposition Benches.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know very well that, if the Secretary of State will not give way, they must resume their seats in good time. Hon. Members must be patient.

Mr. Hunt: I am proud to be part of a British political system that has stood the test of time throughout the ages, despite the Labour party's attempts to undermine it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South made a very serious error of judgment when she attacked the honours system.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: One moment.
The Labour party alleges that, in this country, money can buy honours and favours. That may have been so some years ago, but it is not true today. In fact, on 4 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a series of measures to improve the system, including making the means of nomination for honours much more open and widely known. What is not sufficiently well known is the rigorous scrutiny that is conducted to maintain the integrity of the system.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment. Let me finish what I wish to say about the honours system.
Our honours system gives the nation an opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution that so many people make to our way of life. The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for many years. That whole system is subject to a series of safeguards, which I will explain to the House.
Scrutiny is carried out independently and impartially. If the right hon. Member for Derby, South or any of her chums doubt that, let them come out and say so. Let me explain how the system works. All recommendations for policital honours are examined carefully by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, which is composed of distinguished Privy Councillors; all three major parties are represented. Its members are Lord Pym, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Thomson of Montifieth. It is no accident that two former Labour Cabinet Ministers are among their number—although one has now joined the Liberal Democrats.
When the leader of any party nominates any individual for a political honour—[Interruption.] I shall come to the other honours in a moment. It is important that I put the record straight, in view of the right hon. Lady's disgraceful attack on the system.
In those circumstances, it is the duty of the Chief Whip of any party to provide the Scrutiny Committee with a


statement detailing any payments—or expectation of payment—given to any party by any individual concerned, directly or indirectly, with such payments. In addition, the Chief Whip must provide an assurance that those donations were made without expectations of an honour. All other names—apart from those receiving political honours—come forward through a system of repeated scrutiny, on which political interests are not represented.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) extended the system so that all names added by the Prime Minister for senior honours should also be scrutinised, in the same way as political honours.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
That system is founded on a combination of non-partisanship and inter-party consensus. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition and his Front Bench that any attempt to undermine it will have profound constitutional consequences.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave the House an absolute undertaking that the Conservative party had not received any moneys from the Saudi authorities—the Saudi Government. Will the Secretary of State now answer a question? Has any Saudi-sponsored agency, any Saudi-based business man or any Saudi national arranged to lend, lent or given large sums to the Conservative party—or any Conservative party funding organisation—in the past three years?

Mr. Hunt: I am not aware of any such circumstances. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I consider it disgraceful for Opposition Members to throw out accusations in this way without naming the individuals concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question; he must now contain himself.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) as an authority on sleaze would have been strengthened if, during her disgraceful speech, she had had the courage to refer to the "lavender list" of resignation honours published in 1976 and the bankrolling of the private office of the then Labour leader, Harold Wilson, by private subscription? I believe that some of the people on the Opposition Benches featured on that lavender list.

Mr. Hunt: I just happen to have a copy of the lavender list. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that he continues attacks of this kind at his peril. If Labour Members wish to get into the sewer of politics, they should hardly complain when they find that they are up to their necks in it.
Let me put one or two questions to Labour Members. I am growing increasingly impatient with their hypocrisy on the subject of Mr. Robert Maxwell.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
I will not embarrass Labour Members by asking how many of them were given free lunches, dinners and drinks by Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may be proud of that, but I am not giving way.
For many years, the Labour party enjoyed the sponsorship of Mr. Maxwell and his Daily Mirror newspaper. There was a very public cheque, accepted with grovelling gratitude, by a Labour party conference. How much more money was involved and was that money his to give? It has certainly not been repaid. We hear from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that he is very happy about that money. I wonder whether the Maxwell pensioners are happy about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems confused as to how much was given. First, Walworth road put out an authoritative statement that £43,000 had been given by Mr. Maxwell. That figure then became £41,000, then £38,000 and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke on the radio a short time ago, it had sunk to £31,000.

Mr. Tony Banks: The cheque bounced.

Mr. Hunt: I have it on good authority that that particular cheque did not bounce. Will the Labour party tell us exactly how much was received?

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady if she will tell us exactly how much was received by the Labour party from the late Mr. Maxwell.

Mrs. Beckett: The Labour party received £31,000 from Mr. Maxwell-rather less than even one of the many donations made by Asil Nadir.

Mr. Hunt: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I have not finished yet. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and I am giving the answer.
No other money was received. That money was given because Mr. Maxwell matched a collection made at the Labour party conference. It must have been one of the most public donations ever given to a British political party since it was given on prime time television. The right hon. Gentleman now has his answer. That is all that the Labour party received.

Mr. Hunt: I can hardly wait to respond. We know about that donation only because it was on television. If it had not been on television, we would never have known about it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: The Labour party does not reveal details of high value donations. If the late Mr. Maxwell had not chosen to make his highly public gesture on television, the House would never have known about it.
I have another point to make to the right hon. Member for Derby, South. What about all the other payments? What about the £38,000 paid by Mr. Maxwell towards the costs of a legal action to overturn the Boundary Commission's proposals in 1982? That was undertaken on behalf of the then leader of the Labour party and it is acknowledged in the many books on the subject that he was exceedingly grateful for that £38,000. It has been well documented on many occasions and I will provide all the extracts. Also, it was recently reported in the newspapers. I hope that the right hon, Member for Derby, South will make inquiries.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has left us for a moment. I pay tribute to his integrity because he believes that all the money should be repaid by the Labour party.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the issue concerning my constituents—he has not yet begun to address it—is that Lord King made it clear that he was withdrawing support from the Conservative party because a discrete area of policy no longer pleased him? What is the country to conclude about all the other contributors to the Conservative party, both declared and secret, who continue to pay money to that party?

Mr. Hunt: That was a baseless allegation, but the hon. Gentleman will not divert me. He held the post of secretary to the parliamentary Labour party and he will know the extent of the late Robert Maxwell's support for the Labour party. I have not even begun to deal with trade union funding.

Mr. Tony Banks: So far, we have heard about Robert Maxwell. The Secretary of State keeps saying that all this is well documented. That is fine, because everyone can examine the documents and draw their own conclusions. Since he has told us how much Mr. Maxwell gave directly and indirectly to the Labour party—we have never tried to hide that—will the Secretary of State tell us how much Asil Nadir gave to the Conservative party? How much was given by Mr. Latsis, Mr. Botnar, Mr. Yiren and Mr. Ka-Shing? We will do a deal. If the Conservative party pays back the money to those people, we will club together and pay back the money from Robert Maxwell.

Mr. Hunt: Before the hon. Gentleman has a whip round among his hon. Friends, let me tell him about that list of names. Statements have been made making it clear, for instance, in the case of Mr. Li Ka-Shing, that the allegations are completely baseless. I understand that the next edition of Business Age magazine will contain a detailed retraction and an apology. I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider doing the same.
I have given details of moneys donated by the late Robert Maxwell that have reached public scrutiny. I should like to know—I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South will consider this—what other sums have not seen the light of day.
Let me blow away the smokescreen surrounding the Opposition's motion. When the Polly Peck group made a series of donations totalling £440,000 to the Conservative

party during the 1980s there was no evidence of any malpractice. We have always made it clear that the Conservative party will return any stolen funds to their rightful owners. The chairman of the Conservative party has made it clear that the party does not accept contributions where there is any suspicion that they have been obtained illegally. We do not accept contributions where there is any question of strings being attached and we certainly do not accept contributions from foreign Governments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: If Opposition Members addressed themselves to the substance of their motion, they would see that a fundamental quesiton arises. If they were ever to regain power, would they make it illegal for individuals to make anonymous donations to political parties? [Interruption.] If they would not, the motion is spurious, but, if they would—and they seem to be saying "yes"—some important democratic principles are at stake. Political activity, like charitable activity, is voluntary. The Conservative party at least upholds the principle that contributors should be entitled to privacy. I believe that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of our democracy and the party political system in this country and we destroy it at our peril.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He cast a disgraceful slur on the integrity of our individual civil servants and condemned them collectively.
The critical difference between the funding of the two main parties is that when companies donate to the Conservative party they do so because they share and support Conservative principles and policies. When trade unions give to the Labour party cause they do so because they want to decide its principles and policies.
It is striking that there is no obvious queue of enterprises or entrepreneurs waiting to fund the Labour party. The only queue at Walworth road is of Labour members quitting the party en masse; according to the figures that I have read in the accounts of the Labour party, its membership went down by 50,000 between 1990 and 1991. Indeed, some reports now put it as low as 100,000. This means that the membership of the Labour party is now equal to that of the Liberal Democratic party. Labour Members should ask themselves why.
On the subject of the disclosure requirements of the Companies Act 1985, which the right hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned, I shall make some important points so that Opposition Members can desist from making ill-informed comments. I do so, unavoidably, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I send him, on behalf of the House, our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Members of the Opposition seem to misunderstand the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in enforcing the disclosure requirements. It is primarily the duty of companies and their directors to comply. Having said that, however, the DTI takes its responsibilities very seriously by, for example, following up allegations of non-compliance, except where the matter is more appropriately handled by another agency.
In the case of Polly Peck—[interruption] This is an important point. In the case of Polly Peck, the Serious Fraud Squad Office has taken the lead.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Can the Minister say, therefore, why, late last week, the companies division of the DTI asked Companies house in Cardiff if it would research the box of one group of companies only—the group of companies associated with Robert Maxwell—to see whether the directors had properly declared all such contributions? In the light of the controversy this afternoon already about the possible abuse of civil servants and politics, will he say whether he thinks that that request was a proper use of civil servants' time?

Mr. Hunt: That is typical of the sort of allegation that is being made. I am not aware of any such circumstances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed, but I will, of course, investigate. The hon. Gentleman should not make allegations of that nature without checking thoroughly in advance. It is wrong to seek to involve civil servants in a party political battle.

Mr. Robin Cook: Since the right hon. Gentleman referred to Polly Peck a moment ago, may I remind him of what he said five minutes earlier, which I wrote down at the time? He said that the Conservative party does not accept contributions where there is any suspicion that they were illegally obtained. Is the Secretary of State asking the House to accept that there is no suspicion that the money received from Polly Peck and Asil Nadir was illegally obtained? If he is not saying that, why does not he agree to give it back to where it belongs?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman chose to misinterpret what I said and what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Conservative party does not accept contributions if there is any suspicion that they were illegally obtained. That applies to all the donations that the Conservative party receives. I also said that the Conservative party does not accept donations where there is any suspicion that there are strings attached. That is not the case with trade union donations to the Labour party.
Mr. Edmonds recently showed the red card to the leader of the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He said:
We pay for the Party, we have the right to democracy in the Party.
Democracy usually means one member, one vote; in the Labour party it means one trade union leader, I million votes.
The trade unions—meaning, in practice, a small handful of trade union leaders—control 40 per cent. of the electoral college for the party leader; they account for 70 per cent. of the votes at the annual conference. No fewer that 175 Labour Members of the House are sponsored by unions.
I remember that the late Joe Gormley said that they had a certain number of Members of Parliament in their bank, because they funded them through the National Union of Mineworkers. And Tom Sawyer, of the National Union of Public Employees, said on 2 June last year that while they continued to fund the party,
we will have a say. It is as crude as that. No say, no pay.

Trade unions now supply over 70 per cent. of the Labour party's finance.
In many ways I am a strong believer in trade unions, but I believe that they do themselves a great disservice by identifying themselves with one political party only and allowing it to be a parasite living off trade union funds.
We have heard very little evidence from the Labour party and what evidence we have heard I have refuted. I remind the House that the hidden agenda for today's debate is Labour's desire to have its political campaigning funded by the taxpayer. The reason behind that is obvious and it is a paradox for Opposition Members.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister referred earlier to the late Joe Gormley and implied that sponsored members of the National Union of Mineworkers went along with what he had to say. Let me just put him straight. At the time that Joe Gormley was president of the NUM, he was in favour of the Common Market; I was not. He was in favour of the Labour Government's pay policy and I voted against it. He was in favour of proportional representation and I was not. Joe Gormley has gone and I am still here.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Bolsover was not here earlier when I paid a tribute to him for his integrity by saying that, if he had his way, the Maxwell money would be repaid. He is nodding in agreement.

Mr. Skinner: I am in nobody's pocket.

Mr. Hunt: Exactly. I am saying exactly what the hon. Member for Bolsover is saying. He is in nobody's pocket, but the rest of his party is in the trade union pocket.
There is a paradox for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. While Labour remains in the grip of the trade union movement it is unelectable. If it tries to escape from the trade unions, it will become bankrupt. How on earth can is square that circle? As usual with the Labour party, it is the taxpayer who provides the answer. I shall tell the Labour party the problems about state financing, which are all too obvious. It is wrong in principle to fund political campaigning. Why on earth should the taxpayer,who already has to fund the health service, education and defence, fund the Labour party's political campaigning?
How are the moneys to be allocated between the parties? If it is by seats won, we should hear protests from the Liberal Democratic party, which is one of the strongest advocates of the state financing of political parties. If the money was allocated on the basis of votes cast at an election as far back as four years previously, what equity would there be? No doubt the Labour party would allocate funds according to the latest opinion poll. It allocates policies according to the latest opinion poll, so why not do that with its finances as well?

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would not it be healthy, to put it at its simplest, if political parties were funded from taxation rather than from moneys provided by foreigners?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to the whole debate. I have already dealt effectively with that point.

Mr. Derek Enright: What about the Saudis?

Mr. Hunt: I dealt with the point comprehensively.
The debate has been prompted by a desire to have taxpayers' money funding the Labour party. The Labour party's submission to the Select Committee on Home Affairs gives the game away. It is a lengthy wish list for cash from the taxpayer and it reads rather like a plaintive version of the Labour party manifesto. In its own words, the Labour party is here today to
argue for the introduction of forms of State aid
for political parties. If Labour wants a party, let it pay for it and not the taxpayer.
We learnt during last year's general election campaign that the Labour party has descended from the days of Gaitskell and Attlee to being the party of "nudge nudge, wink wink" and the party of rumour and innuendo—indeed, the party of the sly innuendo. Today's speech by the right hon Member for Derby, South was a travesty and a disgrace. It pitched, weaved and evaded, while all the time seeking to undermine some of our most hallowed institutions. The right hon. Lady will not be allowed to get away with it. The Labour party always denigrates what is good about Britain. The Government stand for the integrity of the existing system. I will not allow the Labour party to undermine public confidence in the integrity of our system. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I reiterate, because of the time, my plea for short speeches. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have never heard such synthetic anger as that demonstrated by the Secretary of Slate for Employment. He had nothing to say and no information to give us. We still do not know in whose pockets the Tories are. The right hon. Gentleman threw no light on the sources of Tory party funds. I can only hope that, when it is the turn of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the chairman of the Conservative party, a little more information will be given to the House.
The debate is about the secretive and sleazy way in which the Tory party is funded. It is about the unique way in which honours fall on company chairmen who give to the Tory party. It is also about the very curious case of Mr. Asil Nadir and the help that he has received from Conservative Members.
No answer was given by the Secretary of State. Indeed, he demonstrated to us, once again, that the Tories are afraid to reveal the sources of the funds that pour into their coffers. Can the Secretary of State tell us why the Tories published their accounts until 1979, since when those accounts have not been published? It is interesting that that change came about.

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall tell him what information is now given to us. We understand the expenditure and what Tory central office receives. In 1992, central office received £20·7 million. When we asked about that and about company donations, the Tory party told us to look at company accounts. I repeat: in 1992, the Tories received £20·7 million. When the records were checked by Companies house, only £2·9

million was shown in company accounts. That means that there is a deficit of £17·8 million. We want to know where that £17·8 million came from.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made the suggestion about the accounts of the Conservative party that was made by a member of the Select Committee last week : that no accounts had been published between 1979 and 1983. They were published, and I undertook to send copies to the Select Committee.

Mr. Hoyle: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I expected him to tell me where the difference of £17·8 million came from. I shall give way again to him. I am told that he is a treasurer of the Conservative party. I give way to him now so that he can stand up and tell us where the £17·8 million came from. Does the hon. Gentleman care to do that? I am waiting. I do not think that we shall get the information from the horse's mouth. We certainly did not get it from the Secretary of State.
Matters are worse than that. According to Business Age, £71 million has been donated in this way since 1985. [Laughter.] I hear Conservative Members laughing. I am quite prepared to sit down and to let one of them get up and tell us where the money came from. No. That has finished it now. The lager louts have finished for today.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Mr. Hoyle: No—there is one left.

Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this marvellous magazine Business Age is really the "Hello" of business publications? It talked about Sarawak as a desert kingdom, when it is in Borneo.

Mr. Hoyle: That is a very useful piece of information, which has added to my knowledge. Does the hon. Gentleman now care to tell us, taking just 1992, where the almost £18 million that is unaccounted for came from? We know that the funding—

Mr. Nigel Evans: This is boring.

Mr. Hoyle: It may be boring, but it is nevertheless true. In fact, it is not boring to my colleagues, because we should like a little light shone on the matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I have to tell my hon. Friend that he is being very unfair to Conservative Members. They will not be able to answer my hon. Friend. I refer him to evidence given to the Select Committee, particularly that from Mr. Eric Chalker, who was on the Conservative Board of Finance and who represented 84 constituencies. He said:
Over £67 million of expenditure was recorded by the Conservative Party … in my fours years on the Committee, but no one had to account for a penny of it to the Conservative Board of Finance nor to any other elected body.
Conservative Members do not know the answers; nor does anyone else.

Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps only two people know where the funding came from. One is Lord McAlpine, whom the unfortunate President of the Board of Trade apparently saw on his visit to Venice. I join the Secretary of State for Employment in hoping that the right hon. Gentleman has


a speedy and full recovery and is soon back in the House. However, the President of the Board of Trade visited Lord McAlpine, and Lord McAlpine is one of the men who knows.
The other person is perhaps someone to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred—Sir Brian Wyldbore-Smith. He is apparently a director of the Conservative Board of Finance—a curious name, but a curious job, too. Apparently, Sir Brian used private addresses to receive cheques—they were not sent directly to central office. They were made out to him personally, eventually passed on and often paid into an offshore account in Jersey, a tax haven.
They eventually landed at central office with Lord McAlpine, whose office, I understand, was always kept locked except when he was in it, so that the secrets could not be given to the rank and file or to members of the Cabinet. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) is right to say that Conservative Members do not know where the funding came from.
I fully expected the Secretary of State to tell us about foreign backers, as that is what part of the debate is about. Why did we not hear about the foreign business people who poured money into the Conservative party's coffers? Why did we not hear a bit about what came from all the trips made to Hong Kong, the 16 occasions when Tory fund raisers went there with Ministers?
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield can tell us a little more about Li Ki-Shing, the Hong Kong-based billionaire. He is one of the richest people in Hong Kong, and was the Chinese Government's representative at the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, which we all know recently took over the Midland bank. Perhaps the £1 million that he is reported to have given was payment for allowing the takeover to go through—[Interruption.] Is anyone denying that he gave £1 million? I am prepared to give way. Are you telling me that he did not give £1 million or that you do not know? You have your opportunity—

Several hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I control the Chair. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time, so he knows that I have no responsibility for the £1 million to which he is referring.

Mr. Hoyle: Thank goodness, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all very relieved that you have no responsibility for it.
Let us consider Greek shipping millionaires, because they are interesting people. John Latsis is reported to have given £2 million to the Tory party by 1991. He had previously given £500,000. If Conservative Members do not believe it. why do they not intervene to say so?
What about the curious case of the Sultan of Brunei, who was very close to the previous Prime Minister and her family? What about the Fayed brothers, who took over the House of Fraser? There was great difficulty in getting the Department of Trade and Industry's report of the inquiry into the case published. They are still company directors, but we do not share the Tories' amusement about that.
The DTI inspector said that the Fayed brothers had dishonestly represented their origins, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of

State, the Office of Fair Trading, the House of Fraser directors and shareholders and their advisers. However, because of previous contributions, they are still acting as company directors.
I shall mention Asil Nadir a little later. We are told that he had no right to expect an honour or a peerage for his donations to the Tory party. I think that he was treated very unfairly, because the facts are that industrialists who give money to the Tory party are far more likely to receive an honour than non-donors.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned United Biscuits and the £1 million given to the Tory party in order to gain an honour for Sir Hector Laing. Is he also aware that a factory closed in my constituency which, had it received that £1 million in investment, would not have had to close, with the loss of 1,000 very much needed jobs?

Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—it would have been a much better use of the money donated to the Tory party.
Let us consider the facts. One hundred of 199 donations brought honours to directors or chairmen of companies which had given to the Tory party.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not strange that seven Conservative Members made representations, written and oral, to the Attorney-General—in one case, the hon. Member saw him in the Division Lobby? We know who three of the seven are; why do the remaining four not explain why they made representations when there could have been no constituency interest? Is it because Mr. Nadir was involved in Tory party finance, or is it something even more sinister?

Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had intended to ask that question a little later. We need an explanation of why those names are being withheld from the House. What have they to hide? Why is the Attorney-General not prepared to make them public? The Secretary of State has not explained, so we can only hope that the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, will not only tell us why the names have been withheld but give us the names themselves. Let us have a little openness in the debate.
Before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North who made a good intervention, I was saying that 100 out of the 199 honours awarded were given to people in charge of companies that had donated to the Conservative party. The interesting aspect of that is that only 6 per cent. of the companies concerned disclosed the donations.

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has been up and down all day. Of course I shall give way to him.

Mr. Burns: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair, so would he care to tell the House how many contributors to the Labour party between 1964 and 1970, and between 1974 and March 1976, were friends of the then Prime Minister and received honours in honours lists?

Hon. Members: Pass.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, that question is not even worth replying to.[Interruption.] Now Conservative Members are shouting; now they have come to life. When we asked them to tell us who contributed the missing £17·9 million in one year alone—1992—they were struck silent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) intends to answer that question, I hope that he will intervene, but I shall not give way to frivolous interventions. I am giving the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to answer the question. He could tell us now. He does not know? He does not, but he does not deny the fact either.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was right to name a few of the companies.

Mr. Donald Anderson: While we are on the subject of illegality and donations, is my hon. Friend aware that Sir Geoffrey Mulcahy, of the Kingfisher Group, was given an honour in this year's honours list at a time when his subsidiary B and Q was leading the fight by illegally trading on Sundays?

Mr. Hoyle: That is a rather telling point. It may account for the Government's total opposition to the Bill on Sunday trading introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We are talking about huge donations. We have been told that United Biscuits gave £1 million, and we know the honours that were received. And what about Hanson?

Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of United Biscuits got his knighthood from a Labour Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Hoyle: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was watching the debate on the monitor before I came into the Chair, so I know that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has been enjoying himself today. I am having great difficulty in hearing the debate, and if I am to control the debate, I wish to hear it. If hon. Members on both sides would control themselves, that would be of advantage to the debate.

Mr. Hoyle: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you rightly said, we have been watching the antics of the Conservative lager louts all the afternoon, except when they were struck dumb when we asked where the money came from.

Mr. Ashby: What about United Biscuits?

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, Hector Laing received his knighthood as the hon. Gentleman said, but—[Laughter.] When hon. Members have had their little joke, perhaps they will listen. When Sir Hector Laing gave £1 million, he received his peerage from a Conservative Government. Not only that, but his successor Sir Robert Clarke also received his knighthood from a Conservative Government.
Now let us deal with the curious case of Lord Hanson. Hanson gave £852,000, and not one person but two people received peerages—Lords Hanson and White. At the time of the takeover bid for ICI, was it not rather curious how reluctant the Conservative Government were to take action?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoyle: Ah, the Front Bench at last.

Mr. Newton: I am especially interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought to get away from the subject of United Biscuits. He has started talking about Lord Hanson, who received a knighthood in the lavender list. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hoyle: But again, Lord Hanson received his peerage from the Conservative party—

Mr. Burns: Dig the hole deeper.

Mr. Hoyle: Conservative Members are enjoying themselves now. Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford would like to stand up and tell me where the money comes from.
The Leader of the House might have mentioned the fact that Lord White received a peerage although he spends most of his time overseas, in the United States. That was a good pay-off. So it was not surprising that, when one of our leading companies was threatened, there was not much action by the Government to defend it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend mentioned United Biscuits and the substantial contribution that it has made to the Conservative party. Is he aware that United Biscuits pressed for the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board, with a view to securing a substantial reduction in the price of potatoes? United Biscuits did that because it is one of Britain's largest users of potatoes, in its processing plants.
The general view in the potato industry is that there is a direct link between the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board and the contribution to the Conservative party. [Laughter.] That is the general view in the farming industry. Let Conservative Members deny it.

Mr. Hoyle: I am amazed at the hilarity shown by Conservative Members when my hon. Friend made that telling point. Do they no longer want farmers' votes? Are the contributions from United Biscuits more important to the Conservative party than farmers' votes?
I could carry on with a long list—[HON. MEMBERS: "More."] If I had time, I could go on to Taylor Woodrow and P and O, and Sir Jeffrey—now Lord—Sterling, and many more. But I shall not bore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I hope that the answer to many of the questions that I have asked will be given by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, the chairman of the Conservative party.
Asil Nadir believes—with much justification in my view—that he has been extremely badly treated by the Conservative party. The Conservatives now admit that he gave £400,000, and Mr. Nadir claims to have given an awful lot more. Some of that £400,000 was given after it was alleged that he stole money from Polly Peck. [HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged."] Of course, alleged.
If any of us wanted to buy a television set in a pub, he would probably look twice at it before buying, and if it turned out to be stolen, he would be charged with receiving stolen goods. Yet the Conservatives will not give the money back. They say that they may if it is demanded of them, yet they know that that money was not shown in Polly Peck's financial returns.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: We have heard the Secretary of State claim that the Conservative party would always give back any money if there was a suspicion that


it had come from an illegal source. That was most interesting, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend knows whether there is any record of the Conservative party ever having given back a donation.

Mr. Hoyle: No, not that we know of, but then, of course, the Conservatives are not very good at publishing records of any kind.
Let us consider Mr. Asil Nadir and his friends in the Conservative party. We know that he is charged with theft and fraud to the value of £30 million. We also know that he jumped bail of £3·5 million. I wrote to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), to tell him that I intended to raise certain points. I am sorry that he is not here today. It is rumoured that, quite apart from the loan of a Volvo, he dined with Mr. Nadir on the Saturday before Mr. Nadir left the country on the following Tuesday. I would have been very interested to learn from the hon. Member for East Hampshire what they discussed over that dinner.
I find it very surprising that the newspapers state that the hon. Member for East Hampshire has complained that Polly Peck was undermined by MI6. Having served on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which examined the supergun affair, I am not too surprised about that claim. However, it is astonishing that the person who is rumoured to have made that accusation is still a Minister responsible for security in Northern Ireland. That is rather amazing.
I agree that the names of the other people involved should be known. One of those who spoke and wrote on behalf of Mr. Nadir unfortunately cannot be with us today—the President of the Board of Trade. I would have liked to hear why the President of the Board of Trade had lunch with Mr. Morgan, who handles Mr. Nadir's PR. Mr. Morgan denies that they talked about Mr. Nadir, but the President of the Board of Trade said they did. What was there to hide when Mr. Morgan had to deny that they spoke about Mr. Nadir?
I would have liked to ask the President of the Board of Trade why it has been decided not to strike Mr. Nadir off as being unfit to hold company office. I would also have liked to ask the President of the Board of Trade why, even though the Serious Fraud Office had been informed that Mr. Nadir might leave the country, he was able to fly away on a small plane without let or hindrance.
There are many questions which should be answered in relation to that matter. However, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am prepared to sit down now if we are going to hear about the missing millions.
The Conservative party has brought all this on itself. The Conservatives received secret funds and donations, not only from companies in this country, which are not recorded, but from people outside this country who do not have a right to vote here. I believe that that practice should be stopped.
Why does not the Conservative party take up the offer that we have made—something with which hon. Members representing other parties would agree—and publish everything so that we know the source of all the donations? We would then know who is pulling the Conservative party's strings, and why, and how much those people are paying for the privilege of doing just that.

Sir Norman Fowler: Frankly, that was a fair old ramble through the undergrowth. With respect to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), he asked me a number of questions, but he ended up providing the answers to them himself. When he referred to Lord Hanson and Lord Laing, he raised the issue of two people who were actually first honoured by Labour Governments. That seems to be the entire answer to the point that he was making.
As the House will know, for the past 12 months I have been the chairman of the Conservative party organisation. In addition, as the House will know, I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee for almost two hours last week. I will therefore seek to be brief in setting out my position.
Let me start by dealing with the allegation in The Guardian this morning to which reference has already been made and which has received a great deal of publicity. It was alleged that the Conservative party received millions of pounds in cash from the Saudi Arabian royal family and that the donation followed a meeting in London between a Cabinet Minister and prominent Saudis with close links to the Saudi Government and royal family.
That allegation was picked up by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). In the article she is quoted as saying that she would raise the matter in today's debate. She did not raise it until I raised it with her.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I want to finish this point.
That allegation and charge has been proved to be—[Interruption.] Okay, that charge has now been countered and it is said that it is totally untrue. I want to quote the statement made by the Saudi ambassador to the United States. He said:
All the allegations in The Guardian's article are untrue and wholly without foundation. No such meeting took place. The allegations are baseless and harmful fabrications and, in view of the serious nature of these allegations, His Royal Highness the Ambassador is taking legal advice as to the appropriate course of action to allow him to obtain a full retraction and an apology.
That is the position and I believe that it would now be right for the right hon. Member for Derby, South to dissociate herself from the matter.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a great deal of the fact that I did not raise the issue during the debate—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Withdraw.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no need for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to bellow. There is nothing that I need to withdraw. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) wanted to know why I did not raise the matter in my speech. I had intended to do that, but before I reached that point, the right hon. Gentleman had already intervened. What I said in the press, what is certainly true and what I have no need to withdraw is that very serious allegations had been made and I said that I would raise them or see that they were raised in the debate so that there could be an opportunity for those allegations to be refuted or confirmed. What is there to withdraw in that?

Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Lady really cannot be as naive as that—if she is, she should not be the deputy leader of the Labour party. She is giving credence to that kind of rumour and allegation. In investing in and putting her name to the matter, she knows perfectly well what she is doing and she should have dissociated herself from it.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is missing something that the Government have missed throughout the debate. The point is that the Government could disprove all of this by publishing the accounts. The issue arises from the fact that a number of people, including those in the Saudi embassy, have said that this took place. We cannot know whether that is true, but we do know that the Government make a distinction between Governments giving money and the money given by individuals. In the Saudi case, individuals may have been directly involved in that money because of the peculiar monarchic situation in Saudi Arabia. That is why the only way out of the trap is for the Government to publish the figures.

Sir Norman Fowler: Again, that is exactly the kind of smear and rumour that we have heard all afternoon. I challenge the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to make those comments outside the House. He knows that he would not then have the privilege that he has inside this place.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I am not giving way again on this point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not give way. I call Sir Norman Fowler.

Sir Norman Fowler: Let me make it absolutely clear: the Conservative party did not, does not and will not accept donations from foreign Governments. That also applies to royal families arid to the agents of the Governments and royal families. f hope that I have made that position absolutely clear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not give way again.
There have also been other allegations made today notably, on television and radio programmes, by—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have heard, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would reply to me. He has not replied to two of the questions that I have asked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have a reply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knew full well when he rose to his feet that that was not a point of order. I call Sir Norman Fowler.

Sir Norman Fowler: I have set out the position as clearly as I conceivably can. I certainly do not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) again. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, but his hon. Friends are not helping me to do so.

Sir Norman Fowler: I think that they were saying goodbye to the hon. Member for Workington. Some hon. Gentlemen we miss in the House; others we miss perhaps a little less.
Other allegations have been made today, notably on television and radio programmes, by the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). At times, they appeared to repeat allegations that first appeared in the magazine, Business Age, and which resulted in legal action being taken against that publication. More to the point, however, that legal action has caused the magazine to retract its allegations, issue an apology and to agree damages. I hope that that will be noted by the Opposition.

Mr. Frank Dobson: We are in some difficulty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolutely".] We have been told by the Secretary of State for Employment that Business Age has apologised. The chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), has just said the same. In between those two announcements, however, I received a message that informed me that their announcement is untrue.

Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it wrong for Opposition Members to repeat untrue allegations under the privilege of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it had been wrong, I would have ruled those hon. Members out of order.

Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will find that the information that he has just given to the House is inaccurate.
Business Age appears to be the well from which Opposition Members draw their allegations. That magazine has also alleged that the Conservative party has £200 million salted away in secret accounts overseas. [Laughter.] That allegation has been widely reported on radio, television and the newspapers. I must tell the House and, in particular, my right hon. and hon. Friends that I sometimes wish that that allegation were true. That allegation was so daft, however, that we have offered a 10 per cent. finder's fee to anyone who is able to find that elusive £200 million. Needless to say, we have heard nothing further.
It is important to consider the serious nature of the point at issue. As chairman of the Conservative party, I am, in common with my predecessors, committed, first, to the voluntary financing of political parties. It is the voluntary commitment which gives a political party its strength. That means that a strong party must have a large, nationwide membership.
One point that has not been understood in the debate, and which should be emphasised, is that the vast majority of the Conservative party's income is raised at the constituency level. In 1992–93, we estimate that the overall


income for the party was £26 million, of which £18 million was raised and spent in the constituencies and only £8·3 million was raised centrally.
It is the central organisation and central fund raising which have attracted all the public attention. It is important to recognise, however, that the Conservative party has no national membership income, unlike the Labour party and the Liberal party. All membership subscriptions to our party are paid locally to constituency associations.

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that the House has just about heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
I do not deny the need for rules to govern the way in which money is raised. I obviously accept that. The most fundamental of all those rules must be that money does not buy political power.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not give way.
The real scandal would be if donations bought control over candidate selection, control over the leadership election and control over policy. That is why I find the Opposition motion so extraordinarily hypocritical, because everything that I have said applies not to the Conservative party, but to the Labour party.
At the last election, the Labour party received three quarters of its funds from the trade unions. Trade union money buys the unions a 40 per cent. say in the selection of candidates, a 40 per cent. say in the selection of the leadership and a 70 per cent. say in party policy determined at party conference. As Tom Sawyer, the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees has said, "No say, no pay." That needs to be repeated again and again, because that reveals the position of the unions. I am not inclined to take lectures from the Labour party on this matter. If it wants reform, there is a great deal that it must and can do for itself.
I am even less impressed by the argument for state funding. In a country where voting is not compulsory, it would be very curious to make it compulsory to donate to party-political campaigns.
I am aware of the Short money used inside Parliament, but it would be a radical extension of current practice to give money for party activities out in the country. Obviously there are practical objections to such a system. Rules would have to be devised to govern how the money was divided and a bureaucracy would have to be established to check how that money was spent. How would those funds be divided? If it were on the basis of past votes, that would simply freeze the status quo. If it were given on the basis of the number of candidates fielded, that would simply encourage extremist candidates to stand.
Above all, I do not believe that the public would support such a change to state funding, particularly when we are rightly seeking to put a check on public expenditure. The idea of compulsory taxpayer funding of the political parties is opposed by about 80 per cent. of the population—the vast majority are overwhelmingly opposed to it.
Let me set out the mechanisms and principles that

govern the way in which the Conservative party raises money. In the past 12 months, I have set up a new management board that oversees spending in the same way as a board of directors might do in a public company. That board establishes accountability for our members and for all parts of the party. We are also in the process of setting up a new board of treasurers, which will be responsible for central fund-raising activities.
Last week, I set out for the Select Committee some of the rules that govern our fund raising. For example, we refuse to accept any donation of which we do not know the source. We refuse to accept any donation that we have reason to believe contains illegally obtained money. We refuse to accept any donation to which strings are attached. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt with that issue extremely well in his speech.
I must repeat what I said to the Select Committee on the question of honours. Under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which was introduced as a result of the abuses committed by the last Liberal Government, any attempt to meddle with honours awarded is illegal. Such an activity is not just wrong; it is illegal. An Act of Parliament exists to prevent such intervention and, of course, the Conservative party observes the law.
I have listened to the Opposition's allegation about peerages, but the hon. Member for Warrington, North has destroyed their case with his own-goal revelations about Lord Hanson and Lord Laing. The first honours given to those individuals did not come from a Conservative Government, but from a Labour one. There is nothing in that allegation. We refuse to accept any money from foreign Governments. I have made it clear—

Mrs. Barbara Roche: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
I have already dealt with the absurd report in The Guardian today, so I shall comment on one or two of the other suggestions that have been made. We have not received money from the Government of Kuwait, the Government of the People's Republic of China or any other Government whatever. As for the suggestion by Business Age that the Sultan of Brunei has given us money, the standard of journalism in that magazine leaves a certain amount to be desired. It describes Brunei as a tiny desert kingdom. Every atlas that I have seen shows that. far from being a tiny desert kingdom, Brunei is next to Borneo and the only sand there is on the beach. The standard of journalism in Business Age must be treated with a great deal of caution—much more caution than has been shown so far by Opposition Members.
Within the rules that I have set out, we certainly accept contributions from public and private companies. I underline that, under the law, those contributions must be declared by the companies.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) questioned me for hours last week and I do not wish to continue that.
The attitude of Labour Members is hypocritical. I have a copy of a letter—I sound like the shadow trade and industry spokesman—from the right hon. Member for


Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the Labour party's attitude in December 1992. It is to a company, B and Q, in which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has a great deal of interest. There was a complaint which concerned a fund-raising ball held at the Conservative party conference. The right hon. Member for Copeland says:
I recognise that some of this publicity was a result of comments made by my Parliamentary colleagues. I would like to make Labour's position clear. We recognise the need for business to communicate with politicians of all persuasions … The Labour party was delighted to welcome B and Q at our gala dinner at the Park Lane hotel in June. We recognised your objective in attending was to further your corporate needs. I am grateful for your support and I hope that it continues.
That seems adequately to deal with the issue of B and Q.
Apart from corporate donations, we receive voluntary contributions made by individuals from their own resources. They are given to the party on exactly the same basis as they are given to other parties. I agree entirely with what Lord Hailsham said on this matter:
It is the most basic right that what a man does with his money, like what he does with his vote, is a private affair. We defend it.
In the Conservative party, no donor—large or small—receives any influence or favours in return for a donation. There are, therefore, no grounds to override the fundamental individual right to privacy.
As far as Mr. Asil Nadir and his contributions are concerned, the House will know—I made this totally clear to the Select Committee on Home Affairs—that we do not comment on specific donations to the party; nor do we intend to do so. However, in view of the fact that information that we provided in 1991 to the administrators of Polly Peck International has been made public, I shall make the following facts clear.
Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said last week, the Conservative party did not receive £1·5 million from Mr. Nadir. Over five years starting in October 1985, the party received a total of £440,000 and the last contribution was made in March 1990. Those donations were made not by Mr. Nadir personally but by Polly Peck International or Unipac Packaging Industries. We know of no further donations from Mr. Nadir or his companies.
The donations were made at a time—this needs to be emphasised—when Polly Peck was regarded as a highly successful British company. I understand that the company made similar donations to organisations and bodies such as the Spastics Society, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Opera House. The responsibility for disclosing those donations rested with Polly Peck.
I understand that the then deputy chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), wrote to the administrators, Touche Ross, in October 1991. He ended his letter by saying:
We have of course consulted our solicitors and have been advised that there is no legal obligation to provide you with the information you seek as regards to Polly Peck International plc unless you have obtained an order of the court requiring disclosure of the information concerned. However, the Conservative party is quite willing to assist you as administrator in this matter without that necessity. I do not know what the position is under Cypriot law, but for the same reason you will see the information included as to Unipac.
Details of the contributions are then set out.
We never received a reply to that letter. There was silence from Touche Ross for the next 18 months. The issue was next raised when a copy of the information—I do not know whether it was a copy of the letter—was provided to the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry, the hon. Member for Livingston.
There were new allegations in The Sunday Times, again quoting staff from Touche Ross. At no stage have we been contacted by Touche Ross since our 1991 letter. The result is that, yesterday, I asked our lawyers to contact Touche Ross directly. One hour before entering the Chamber, I finally received a letter, 601 days after our first communication.
Obviously, we will now consider that letter. I do not believe that any reasonable person will expect me to give a snap reaction and response to it. [Interruption.] It is a serious point. If the matter was so urgent, Touche Ross should have come back to us quickly, rather than after 600 days. To avoid any doubt, let me make this clear. If we receive proof from Touche Ross or any other source that the money we received was stolen, we will return it. I make that position absolutely clear.
We now need to deal not with unsubstantiated allegations and unsourced press reports. We need evidence instead of pure assertion. I hope that Touche Ross will start to deal with us and not pursue the matter through the newspapers.

Mr. Dennis Turner: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way.
I have set out the position of Mr. Asil Nadir fully and clearly. Let me make this clear: we will return the money if it was stolen. I hope that the Labour party makes such a pledge regarding the tens of thousands of pounds that the Leader of the Opposition admitted were received from Mr. Robert Maxwell. That issue needs to be addressed. I realise that the figure that has been given is £31,000. We want to check carefully whether that is the complete figure. If the money received from Mr. Nadir is tainted, it seems that the money received from Mr. Maxwell is covered in black tar.

Mr. Dobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Tory party ever received any money from Robert Maxwell? If everything that Robert Maxwell did was tainted, why did the right hon. Gentleman, when he was the Secretary of State for Employment, sell to Maxwell the Professional and Executive Register at a time when it was rumoured that higher bids were received from other companies? The hon. Gentleman did not deny those rumours.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman once again shows his total lack of integrity. The allegation that he has just made is simply untrue.

Mr. Eric Martlew: It is true.

Sir Norman Fowler: It is not true. It is specifically untrue. I challenge the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to provide evidence to support what he says. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand how sales take place in government. Ministers do not make those decisions. However, for avoidance of doubt and from my own clear memory, Mr. Robert Maxwell did not appear in one way or the other in the matter.
In my recollection, the offer that was made to the Department of Employment was by far the highest offer. The hon. Gentleman seeks to make yet another slur. It is slur after slur.

Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is so clear, why did not he challenge the doubts cast at the time in newspapers such as The Times about whether the Maxwell bid was the highest offer? If he thought that Robert Maxwell was so monstrous a person and that his companies were so unreliable, why did he say:
We were impressed by their plans to make the company the flagship of the new employment services division of their business"?
Why did he say:
There is no doubt that they have the expertise and commitment to give the Professional and Executive Register the start in the private sector that we want for it"?
Can he confirm now that it is entirely closed down?

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace not only to his Front Bench but to standards in politics. He continues to repeat things that he knows are untrue. He knows that he is in the hole and is protesting and protesting. What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue. I hope that when he comes to think about it, if he ever comes to think about these things, he will withdraw the suggestion that he has made.
The Conservative party's position is precisely this. Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe that the taxpayer should be forced to bail out political parties.

Mrs. Beckett: We should have the record straight in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to Short money—taxpayers' money which goes to the Opposition political parties. It is also on the record that public money from the taxpayers goes to the Conservative party to fund the advisers and appointees that it has in government. The Conservative party receives at the minimum, and on published figures, substantially more than the Labour party. I believe that it receives about four times as much as the Labour party. Those appointees of the Conservative party advise the Government in supplement to Government advisers.

Sir Norman Fowler: I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but I am not sure whether it takes the debate much further. We are debating how much further down the road to state funding we want to go. There is a clear divide between the positions of the two parties. The right hon. Lady wants state funding. The Conservative party does not want state funding. I believe that the public overwhelmingly do not want state funding.
Unlike the Labour party, we do not sell votes at our party conference to our donors. Unlike the Labour party, we have always had a system of one member, one vote in the selection of our candidates. We have had such a system literally for decades. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, many of us are here today because at the selection meeting our chief competitor was thought to be backed by central office. There is no question whatever about that.
Unlike donors to the Labour party, our donors do not wield block votes at our party conference or decide the leadership of the party. When the Leader of the Opposition sought election to his present position, he sent

his aides around union conference after union conference. That is not remotely the position in the Conservative party.
There is one true scandal in the funding of British political parties. It is the funding of the Labour party, a party which has sold its soul to the highest trade union bidder. The Labour party is basically undemocratic. It is union-dominated. Its constitution is one of reasons why it has stayed on the Opposition Benches for 14 years and why it will stay on those Benches for a great deal longer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This has been an interesting debate so far. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) had some interesting things to say about the continuing negotiations on the Polly Peck donations received by the Conservative party. He said that he was in negotiation with lawyers and with Touche Ross.
If the right hon. Gentleman is in any doubt that any of the £400,000 to which he referred is under suspicion, the right course is for him to pay that money into court and leave it in the hands of the court until such time as a legal resolution has been arrived at for the proper disposition of that money. If he did that, he would be seen to be completely above suspicion.
The right hon. Gentleman announced that he had received a letter from Touche Ross. It is certainly strange that it took Touche Ross so long to reply. Something seems to be seriously wrong there. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a course of action that was above suspicion and would certainly satisfy me that the Conservative party was doing everything possible to ensure that it was beyond any controversy or complaint, he would pay that money into court forthwith.
I wish to make a short speech because I do not want to be part of the party political harangue that has been going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Indeed, it would be easy for me to be sanctimonious. I assure hon. Members that I shall not do that. At least the last time that the Liberal party was in a position to deploy honours we were open about it. We had price lists. There were price tags on honours. The law has been changed since then. I certainly accept the assurances by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the various stories that have been flying around. I am pleased that he gave them.
It is time that we drew a line under some of the allegations, charges and counter-charges that have been made, because they do not do the process of politics much good. The sooner that we turn to the important aspects of the matter, the better. It may be a controversial position to take, but I am willing to draw a line in the sand—the Saudi Arabian or any other sand—about what has happened in the past. If the House turned its mind to what we could do collectively and across the party political divide to re-establish public confidence in financing of the political parties, it would be all to the good.
Of course the funding of political parties is a matter of public interest. It is a fundamental element of a democratic process that the way in which parties finance themselves and the uses and sources of that money are transparent. I suggest to the House that that is not the case at present—for a variety of reasons. We have an ancient and antiquated unwritten constitutional system which tends to land us in problems when crises arise suddenly out of the


mists and take us by surprise. We discover that there are anomalies. We make the constitutional changes as we go along.
Liberal Democrat Members have been saying for longer than we can remember that we should examine the whole constitutional machinery. Such an examination would include the way in which parties are financed. Dare I say it, it may even include consideration of whether there is a role for the state in party political financing.
There is an argument for that and we should perhaps examine the way in which sister democracies such as Canada and Germany operate. There are some lessons to be learnt there. The German system is not perfect, because it encourages central parties to get fat, bloated and lazy. There is so much money swilling around that they do not need to go out and fight for members and donations.
We should encourage people to give. The more who give money voluntarily towards the political process, the healthier it will be.
I must at that point enter a caveat, and I address it particularly to Conservative Members. There must be a threshold on individual and corporate donations above which matters become dangerous. I do not know whether the line should be drawn at £2,000, £5,000 or £10,000. Once we get into five and even six-figure numbers, the level of money could distort the balance—I am not making accusations but arguing purely in terms of principle—because any political party would have to respond.
Politics is today an extremely expensive business, with multi media technology, and propaganda costs a lot of money. I am in favour of propaganda, because it is an open and honest part of the process. We must all tell our tales and get our policies across. The media are becoming more complicated and pervasive. While that creates the need to raise more money, we must resolve to generate it in an open and honest way.
The time has come for us to consider two simple changes. The Government should sponsor bilateral talk with all the parties in the House to see if we can reach agreement on two simple questions. The first is about the level of individual and corporate donations above which we should have to solicit the approval of the donors to make their identities known.
That would not cost anybody anything. People may argue that it would frighten donors off, but, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is a free country and people can do as they wish with their money. We should encourage them to put money into politics.
Consider, for example, David Sainsbury. Nobody could complain that a man such as he—some may say that he was misguided about the way in which he deployed the money, but that is a separate question—should not have contributed in the way he did. When the SDP started, he gave it a foot on the first rung of the ladder, which it was perfectly legitimate for him to do. He did it openly, and it had the result of which we are aware. We should not discourage such giving. Indeed, we should encourage it.
But if we are to go that far, the Government of the day should be given protection against the suspicion that will always exist if there is not a threshold governing big money players in the game. Otherwise, there will always be the conspiracy theory. If the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was doubtful about conspiracy theories, and as he listened to the Labour party's Front-Bench speakers, he must have appreciated that there would always be people looking for excuses to run scare stories. That is bad for

business. It should not be impossible for the parties to agree a figure, or at least to discuss the question of individual donations.
There is a second, quintessentially simple move that I suggest that we consider seriously. Companies are today no longer easily and readily under the control of their shareholders. I do not complain about that, because companies have become complicated and sophisticated organisations. Company law is behindhand in achieving a proper relationship between shareholders and company managements, but that is a subject for another debate.
If companies, particularly big firms, engage in substantial donations—I do not consider £2,000 to £5,000 in the form of annual or other donations to be untoward, because such amounts do not skew the balance of influence in any political organisation—company law should ensure that their managements must secure the sanction of their shareholders before engaging in donations running into four and five-figure sums.
Those two changes would not be massive or involve great statutory controls or large Acts of Parliament. They would enable us to move to a point from which innuendos could be dealt with. Everything would be in the public domain, open and above board.
If we do not take such action, there will he a danger—again, I do not make a party political point, though it is an important aspect that particularly the Conservative party must bear in mind—that any party that has been in power for three, four or more terms will start to run up against the charge of nepotism in relation to placements on party and public bodies, hospital trusts and so on. After a party has been in power for a number of terms, there is bound to be a suspicion that insiders will get control, and that party advisers, pollsters and pundits will take charge of the party apparatus.
That danger is made worse by commercial aspects for which the Government are not responsible. I refer to cases such as Barlow Clowes, Maxwell, Lloyd's and the Guinness affair. Such cases erode public confidence. More than anything else in today's debate, I am nervous lest such matters fare badly in the country's high streets, with people saying, "They are all in it, up to their necks."
While I do not believe that to be true, we must accept that there are problems. They will get worse, and they are always worse for the Government party, no matter what is discussed in terms of party political finance. It particularly applies to a Government who have been in power for as long as the Conservatives have held office.
That is why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has a heavy responsibility on his shoulders. I appreciate that he has problems. He must get his management right, and he must find £8·3 million for next year or his party will grind to a halt. Frankly, I could run a handsome party for £8·3 million. There is an argument for keeping parties lean, cheap and cheerful, as is the case with the modern Liberal Democrats.
As I say, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear a heavy responsibility for ensuring that they get the balance right. In that connection, the right hon. Gentleman can ignore much of the nonsense that has been thrown at him from across the Floor of the House today. But he cannot ignore it all, and he must give serious thought to the issues that I have raised. I hope he will do that.
My hon. Friends and I are faced with Hobson's choice today. I have great difficulty with the Labour motion,


especially as it invites us to support some sort of Labour charter. That is testing our patience a long way. We do not have much choice. I wish to make it clear that—subject to what the Leader of the House, who is persuasive, may say in reply to the debate; he may yet persuade me to the contrary—I do not want anybody to read anything into any support that we may give to the Labour motion. Certainly nobody should read into it our support for a Labour charter, because large chunks of it are nonsense.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: As I listened to the extremely reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) I could not help but feel that there are many lessons that we might yet learn from the sale of political honours by his party in times past. I am pleased to know that all of that is in the past and that, at any rate from his point of view, we are now reasonable and understanding of one another.
As the House knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs decided towards the end of last year to inquire into the funding of political parties. Our terms of reference were to examine the case for and against the state funding of political parties, the methods by which parties should be financed, the adequacy of the money that is raised for the purposes that are needed, the desirability of controls over the sources of finance and other statutory requirements that might be placed on donors or recipients. It was reassuring to have the Liberal party treasurer state in evidence that we received yesterday that, placed in the same political position, he would have been delighted to have accepted £440,000 from Asil Nadir.
We were getting on with our work quietly and sensibly when we approached the silly season, which coincided with the upturn in the economy, which greatly irritated Labour, the criticism of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) from within and without his party, and the drying up of income to the Labour party, to which reference has been made. There was a row about one man, one vote in the Labour party and the fact that, if there is one man, one vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "One person."] Please forgive me. I should say that if there is one man/woman, one vote, the trade unions might get nasty and forget their historic obligations to the Labour party.
They might remember what Tom Sawyer from the National Union of Public Employees told us, "No say, no pay". They might remember the words of John Edmonds of the GMB, when he said. "It's our party". They might remember what Bill Morris, of the Transport and General Workers Union, said when he reminded the Labour party of the size of his union's donation—£1·5 million. The older of us will recall Arthur Scargill having to come to the Bar of the House to apologise for saying that if Labour Members supported by the National Union of Mineworkers did not deliver for that union, they would lose their sponsorship. The trade union movement provides 70 per cent. of Labour party funds, helps to choose candidates, and votes on policy and candidates. I might ask in passing, what business contributor to the Conservative party has those powers?
Therefore, it is vital that Labour Members should raise the issue of state funding of political parties—the taxpayers' contribution. The trouble with the Labour

party is that, if it was popular with successful British industries and if the people who give it their votes raised money for it by contributions—as they do for the Conservative party to the tune of £17 million—we would not be having today's debate initiated by the Labour party. It is because the Labour party is so anti-business and anti-ordinary people that it has to raise money through the trade unions. If the trade unions take away that money, the Labour party will have to raise it from the taxpayer.
I said that we were in the silly season because the Labour party is making itself look foolish by allowing itself to be associated with the rubbish in The Guardian about Saudi money. It is not remotely likely that the kings of Saudi Arabia would have an aeroplane, with its engines revving, full of used £5 notes ready to deliver to the Conservative party on the first day of the general election. I see that my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party is present. He will know that, if that had been the case, the party would not be £17 million in the red. It does no credit to The Guardian, which passes itself off as an organ of judgment and credibility, or to the Labour party, gleefully to take up such utter nonsense.
It is silly to campaign about the sale of honours. There is not the slightest evidence to show that honours have been sold. The Labour party is certainly vulnerable on that issue. Asil Nadir must be bitterly disappointed that the £440,000 that he gave for the purchase of honours not only failed to buy him a knighthood, but resulted in him being prosecuted with such strength that he has fled the country and dare not face up to his responsibilities.
The Labour party has shown not only silliness but an amazing gall. According to the party, Robert Maxwell gave only £31,000 or £43,000, plus £38,000. Yet he was a secretive man with a lot of companies into which he tucked a lot of money. He was a former Labour Member of Parliament and a dedicated Labour party supporter. He was secretive and generous. I wonder whether any Members of the Labour party can put their hand on their heart and say that that was the only money that that generous and secretive man ever gave to the party.
The Labour party says that he gave only £31,000 or £43,000, plus £38,000. I should like to know whether any of his family ever gave any money to the party or whether any of his companies did so. I should like to know whether he gave the party gifts in kind or advertising space in the Daily Mirror or any of his other papers. I wonder whether any of the money that that corrupt man gave to the Labour party was returned to the creditors and pensioners. If it was not, I should like to know how soon it will be returned.
Silliest of all is early-day motion 2184 calling on me to reconsider my position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It states that I have admitted to
being involved in accepting free all expenses paid trips to the illegally occupied areas of Cyprus
to which the fugitive Nadir has fled from justice. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the fact that that motion has the signatures of 100 honourable and supposedly sensible members of the Labour party.
Of course, I admitted to being involved: I had to declare my visits in the Register of Members' Interests, as we all have to do in this place as hon. Members and as members of honourable organisations which operate with the sanction of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the


approval of Parliament. No allegation has been made that I took any money from Asil Nadir. I did not, I do not know him, I have never met him, I have never corresponded with him and, as far as I know, I have never been a beneficiary of his largesse. I was invited to visit north Cyprus by the Government of north Cyprus.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
The Government of north Cyprus, although not recognised by the international community, represent a grievously wronged people. It is strange that the Labour party, which claims to have concern for human rights, never speaks up for the Muslim Turkish minority in Cyprus. They once ruled Cyprus, together with the British, from 1571; the Greeks never did that. They did not slaughter 103 villages belonging to the Greeks in 1963, 1967 and 1973. If the British soldiers who lost their lives fighting against the Greek EOKA bid to unite Cyprus to Greece—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that this is not a debate about Cyprus.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The early-day motion which has been tabled and which asks me to resign is all about Cyprus, but I do not wish to be irrelevant.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your previous ruling. Contrary to what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was saying, the early-day motion relates to Government foreign policy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Early-day motions are nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I went to north Cyprus with some highly respected Labour Members of Parliament—the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—as well as with the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and as well as my hon. Friends. By tabling such a silly motion, the Labour Members are shooting themselves in the foot because their own respected and highly reputable people came on that visit.
If I am to resign because I accepted a sponsored visit—as do many hon. Members from both sides of the House—should they not be asking members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who continuously accept sponsorship from trade unions, the interests of which they are directly considering in the inquiry, to resign as well? I would not be so childish or silly to make that request of the hard-working Labour members of my Select Committee, but the motion shows how silly the Labour party is.
Looking down the list of 101 Labour signatures I see to my astonishment that 58 of them are sponsored by the trade union movement. One of the signatories, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), has admitted visiting General Electric in Boeing, Cincinnati and Seattle. The costs of his visit were borne by companies including British Airways.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) declares an overseas visit in August and September 1992 to China, with accommodation and hospitality provided by the Chinese Government, although he paid for the travel himself.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made an overseas visit to Tokyo, Japan, as a guest of the World Parliamentarians' Conference for Support of the United Nations. I do not know where the money for that came from.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) went to Colorado, United States of America, to visit a nuclear dry storage facility and that was funded by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) visited Cyprus. That was paid for by the Government of Cyprus, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to sign the early-day motion requesting my resignation.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) went to Libya, sponsored by the Libyan Government, and to Berlin, Senegal, Martinique and Libya again, visits, I think, in the main not paid for by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the parliamentary word for hypocrisy, but if I did I would use it.
The Home Affairs Select Committee will doubtless consider all those issues. It will consider whether taxpayers really want to fund political parties and what control a Government may or may not exert if it is the paymaster through the taxpayer of such funding. It will want to consider the level of donations, corporate giving and whether the law requiring disclosure of donations is sufficient.
I should like to know, and no doubt the Select Committee will ask, whether the Labour party receives any corporate donations and, if so, if it will give us the names of those corporate donors. If it will not, why is it demanding that the Conservative party gives the names of its corporate donors?
I should like to ask the Labour party what the item "high value donor activity" of £228,000 in its 1991 accounts means. I should like to know, and the Select Committee will no doubt ask, whether the Labour party believes that the freedom of the individual to decide what party he supports, whether by his vote or by his or her donations, should be removed, and whether the Labour party has become anti-civil liberties. I should like to know whether the Labour party believes that individuals should be forced to disclose their donations. I should like to know whether disclosure is practicable. The Select Committee will be asking those questions.
Why cannot a donation to a political party be given through organisations so that the real donor is hidden? How many trade union employees work as full-time agents for the Labour party? How many trade union premises were used by the Labour party during the 1992 election? How many trade union vehicles were used? Was all that declared? How much Labour opinion research was done by the trade unions? No expenditure has been declared for that in the Labour party's accounts, so someone must have paid for it and it seems likely that it might have been the trade unions.
The Home Affairs Select Committee went to Washington and we visited an office in order to see how high disclosure worked in the United States. A name, such as that of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), is typed in and reams of paper come out saying that he gave


$220,000 to the Republican party, $150,000 to the Democratic party, $100,000 here, $10,000 there, $5,000 there. The only people who go to those offices, where about 120 people work at state cost, are the researchers for the candidates standing against the incumbent congressman to see what dirt they can churn out. For my part, I do not think that the British taxpayer wants to spend that kind of money on that kind of research in order to pretend that there is open disclosure of contributions to parties.

Mr. Meale: Perhaps in all his searches of company and political party records the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to examine those of Polly Peck and Asil Nadir to see whether his name and the payment for his accommodation during his recent visit to Cyprus appear there.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have disclosed it, so it does not matter. I signed the Register of Members' Interests the moment I returned. If the hon. Gentleman had known about that register, he might not have put down such a silly early-day motion, nor got so many of his silly friends to sign it.
I hope that the silly season will end soon and that the Select Committee will return to sensible, calm deliberations, settle down and remember that we have the least corrupt political system in the world.
It is time that we stopped trying to pretend that we are a weak, vapid, failing nation which ought to be the laughing stock of the rest of the world. We are not. We are one of the great nations of the world. Other countries look to us for political probity, and the sooner that Opposition Members realise that the better it will be for Britain.

Mr. Donald Anderson: For the greater part of his speech, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) spoke not as the Chairman of an all-party Select Committee trying objectively to consider the subject before us, but as a partisan politician. However, as my starting point, I agree that there is relatively little corruption in our political system compared with what one reads about in, for example, Japan, or areas where there is a clear correlation between contributions to the leading party and public contracts. We are still relatively corruption-free.
One of the bulwarks of that is our party system which ensures that Members of Parliament can, to a large extent, rely on their party for the funding of their campaigns, rather than on external donors. That is why the parties themselves must be above question.
Some fear that the political culture in Britain is changing for the worse. Because of some highly publicised trials that have taken place during the past few years, there are strong fears about Britain's corporate structure. The same sleaze, which, alas, is well publicised within the City, might move over into our political system. There is also anxiety about the activities of certain lobbying organisations. But whether or not such fears are justified, this is a good time to learn the lessons of Asil Nadir and some of the revelations that have come to light and to try to alter our law and procedures accordingly.
One of the sadder features of the good, tub-thumping, party speech of the Secretary of State for Employment was

that he did not seem to realise that there is a problem and that is worrying. Surely we can learn from the current revelations and build, or attempt to build, barricades to guard against the dangers and the personal conflicts of interest that are likely to arise for Governments as a result of financial contributions.
There will always be temptations. The best guarantee against politicians falling into those temptations is openness. I commend to the House the dictum of the Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I hope that in all our political funding for all the parties we will be prepared to let in as much sunlight as possible in the hope that those who might otherwise be tempted will draw back and remember the fine political culture within which we have all been brought up.

Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great care. Does he feel that every penny donated to a political party should be governed by the rules that he has just advocated, or is he referring just to large sums of money donated for the purpose of obtaining influence? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a basic human right of anyone who has earned his money and has paid his taxes to make whatever contributions he wishes? Does not this apply to the small-time private individual seeking to advance his political belief through a political party?

Mr. Anderson: I have set out a broad principle, which must be interpreted on the basis of reason. Certainly one would not want the widow of Cheltenham, who may or may not make contributions to the Conservative party, to be obliged to make such a disclosure. On the other hand, if Ross Perot were to give money to the Conservative party, it would be democratically wrong that there should not be disclosure so that the British public might make up their own minds. It should be clear that we are not in danger of being bought or of having conflicts of interest.
There are two basic concerns, the first of which is foreign donations. When the Select Committee went to the United States it learnt that foreign donations are totally banned in that country. In the American system there is consensus, from right to left, that such donations are wrong. I am aware of the argument that people who believe in the free enterprise system should be allowed to make contributions as they wish. In respect of domestic matters I accept that principle, but in the case of foreign donations other important principles of our democracy are paramount. There is a real danger of conflict of interest.
For a period of 10 years I had the honour to be a foreign affairs spokesman for my party. In that capacity, I dealt with questions relating to Hong Kong and with questions concerning Cyprus. I have no doubt at all about the personal integrity of those Front-Bench politicians with whom I dealt at that time, but one has to guard against conflicts of interest. In the case of Hong Kong, during the 1980s very sensitive issues were discussed by representatives of this country, representatives of Hong Kong and representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China. If it were known that senior Hong Kong business men were contributing massively to the funds of the Government party they would clearly be at least under temptation. There would be potential problems of conflict of interest.
The same goes for Cyprus. It is said that Asil Nadir gave money not just because he happened to believe in the free enterprise system, but because he was, rather vainly—vainly in the sense of personal vanity and in the sense of failure—hoping to gain a personal honour. It was said also that he was lobbying on behalf of the Government of north Cyprus. During the 1980s we were also trying to resolve the Cyprus problems. It is clear that, although it is a guarantor power, Britain did not at that time take any initiatives. I cast no aspersions at all about the personal integrity of Ministers who were responsible for British foreign policy. However, acceptance of money from Asil Nadir, who was lobbying on behalf of a government not recognised by any other country in the world, created the likelihood of a conflict of interests. In my judgment, these and other questions make it most undesirable for parties to accept contributions from foreign donors.
The second concern arises in respect of contributions from private donors. What disclosure is reasonable in those circumstances? Business people are not always public-spirited. What is their motive in making contributions? Some people point to the very close correlation between knighthoods and contributions to the Conservative party. In that regard I make no particular point. Nor do I make any point about, for example, the drinks industry. I am strongly of the view that there should be random breath testing. Some people may say that the Government steadfastly refuse to accept the principle of random breath testing because of the very substantial, and increasing, contributions made to the Conservative party by the drinks-related industry. At least that is in the open. We know that the drinks industry makes massive and increasing contributions, as is its right. In this regard, I make no particular complaint.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. I represent what I consider to be the brewing centre of England and I have never had any representations from any brewer to the effect that I should oppose the random breath testing of drivers. In fact, I am strongly in favour of random breath testing. Although the hon. Gentleman may be suspicious of them, these large organisations, which undoubtedly give money to political parties, do not always seek to put pressure on those parties.

Mr. Anderson: So be it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The brewers' interest in the Government's plans to break up their monopoly might be a better example. I wonder if any Conservative Members have had representations about that matter.

Mr. Anderson: So far as I am able, I am relying on points of principle. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I shall not follow it up at this stage.
I want to make the general point that, in a democracy, transparency is very important. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asserted that, in a democracy, citizens have a right to make voluntary contributions. Some people may give to Oxfam, some to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and others to the Conservative party. But surely it is naive and simplistic to suggest that there is no difference between giving voluntarily to a charity with a specific objective and giving to a party which, in

government, can—in many cases does—adopt policies that may flow from such contributions. In the case of Asil Nadir, I regard as wholly naive the suggestion by the chairman of the Conservative party that if funds are proved to have been stolen they will be returned. What evidence would be sufficient? No numbered bank notes were transferred from Polly Peck into some Jersey offshore account. It is quite impossible to trace money that may have been stolen and then transferred into an offshore account, part of whose funds may have been illegally obtained. All that one can say is that some of the money is likely to be tainted. If, in respect of this matter, the Conservative party chairman had any honour he would repay funds that clearly are the subject of fraud. He cannot get away by saying that if it can be proved that the funds were stolen the money will be repaid. Such proof is impossible. Nadir may have believed in the free enterprise system, but he was doing much else.
I return to a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. It is clear that, in respect of Maxwell, my own party is somewhat vulnerable. I make no attempt to dissemble in respect of that matter. However, I know of no member of the Labour party who has sought to lobby the Attorney-General in respect of members of the Maxwell family who face criminal prosecution. Surely alarm bells ring when seven Conservative Members—not just the constituency Member, in whose case one might understand such action—make representations on behalf of this gentleman to the Attorney-General, whose duty it is to make objective decisions in respect of prosecution. The fact that Nadir paid such substantial sums and the fact that there may have been other types of contribution indicate that something smells, that something is amiss in the British state.
The Sunday Times—a paper that normally pulls its punches in respect of the Conservative party—has said that the Tory party took
stolen money from an ambitious crook who believed he was buying a favour".
That was the paper's allegation. The Conservative party allowed itself, with its eyes open, to be led into a conflict of interests; it saw the danger and walked into it. I believe that that is wrong.
Let me again quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why does the Conservative party fear the sunlight? What has it to hide? In a democracy, why should not citizens know how their parties are funded and be allowed to make their own decisions?

7 pm

Mr. David Ashby: This is a sleazy debate initiated by a sleazy party, which is attempting to denigrate politics and democracy. The motion is not worthy of a great party. While our Prime Minister is in Copenhagen, successfully persuading the world's greatest nations to desist from creating an all-out massacre in Bosnia, what does the Labour party wish to debate? It wishes to debate the issue of whether donations to a party should be transparent—whether they should be disclosed. Moreover, it is going about it in a way that depends on rumours, sleaze, the bandying of names and the slinging of mud in the hope that it will stick.
Various names have been flung—for instance, that of Asil Nadir. Last week, Labour was certain that the sum involved was £1·5 million. In the Select Committee on


Home Affairs, it was a Labour Member who happened to ask the chairman of our party whether he was not sure that other donations from Asil Nadir, of which he was unaware, might bring the total to £1·5 million. In fact, as the party chairman has said openly, the sum is £440,000.
What has happened to politics in this country? We used to accept the word of Members of this honourable House. We did not ask them to give evidence on oath. What is happening to the Labour party? When someone says something openly to the House and states that it is a fact, Labour Members say, "We do not believe you. What about this, that and the other?" What they say is just sleaze and mud slinging, involving no truth and no backing. It shows how low they have sunk. Their performance in today's debate makes me feel ashamed of the House: I think that it is a disgrace.
Conservative Members have flung around the name of Robert Maxwell. I think it disgraceful that we should raise such matters, because this is not what the debate should be about. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who has now left the Chamber, even mentioned the name of Ernest Saunders, in connection with something that he—a convicted man, whom no one would now believe—wrote in a book. I asked the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) whether she had read the Select Committee evidence, because I was present on the Terrace on the occasion in question. I remember telling Ernest Saunders that I thought the current takeover bid for Distillers absolutely stank. He stared at me in amazement.
I was entirely right: the bid did stink, for all the reasons that subsequently emerged in the prosecution. Perhaps that is the way in which Ernest Saunders wants to gloss over the fact that Tory Members have spoken to him and asked for donations. If hon. Members want to believe anything, they should believe his book; but does it say anything about my having approached him and told him that his bid stank? It does not.
Let us have an end to all the mud slinging. Allegations have been raised about the Sultan of Brunei; the chairman of our party has said that they are untrue. We do not accept money from foreign Governments, or from the families of foreign rulers. That should be the end of the matter. That is the way in which we behave and those are the standards of the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What about Michael Mates?

Mr. Ashby: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he is a newcomer to the House. I have been here for 10 years and I can tell him that being a Member of Parliament carries great dignity. Our word is our bond.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member may voice, from a sedentary position, the Christian name and surname of another hon. Member. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) wishes to intervene, he should stand up and do so; otherwise, I should be grateful if he would keep his thoughts to himself.

Mr. Ashby: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is honour and dignity in British politics; there is truth and honesty. Let us have no more of this sleaze. Let us start behaving in the way that the world expects.

Mr. Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashby: I will, if the hon. Gentleman tells me his constituency.

Mr. Prentice: Pendle. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it was honourable for the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) to give a watch to the fugitive Asil Nadir, inscribed with the legend "Don't let the buggers get you down"?

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman should address that query to the hon. Member in question, not to me. I do not know the circumstances; I am simply saying that, when someone says something in the Select Committee or the House, it is the truth. We do not lie in the Chamber, or in Select Committees. When things have been said in Select Committees, we do not then turn round and suggest that the person who said them was lying—or was not telling the truth, or was not being accurate. Other such phrases seem to have become current in the House. That is not the way in which we behave.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that it denigrates the standing of the House and that of all hon. Members on both sides of the House when such suggestions are continually bandied about, although they have been clearly denied?

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What Labour Members are doing in this debate is fundamental to democracy. They are trying to ridicule the Conservative party and, in so doing, are ridiculing themselves. They have given the impression that all politics are as filthy dirty as theirs. What we have seen today and in the disgrace of the past few weeks is the filth and dirt of the Labour party, not that of the Conservative party.
I have been closely associated with Italy and I have just come back from a trip to Peru, where I examined human rights and all the issues in which Labour believes—issues in which I believe as well; we have that in common. I found that, in those countries, the British political system was highly regarded. We have the respect of the whole world. In Peru, the system had broken down because of a total lack of respect for the political set-up.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashby: Let me finish. The Peruvian president had emerged from behind, rather like Ross Perot, with no knowledge of politics and no political backing. He had been virtually unheard of a fortnight before the election. Having emerged as president, he looked around at the political scene. All the political parties had been denigrated and were in chaos. He rejected them and turned to the army. The world said, "No, that is not good enough." He then tried to return to a democracy. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) understands that I am not suggesting that the system in Peru is right. I am trying to say that if we go along this road, we are creating that sort of chaos.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Ashby: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We also see chaos in Italy. The political parties have behaved in a way that is right, but there have been attacks and counter-attacks and the political system is disintegrating. We are travelling in that direction and that would be dreadful.
We have heard many innuendos about Asil Nadir. There are enough lawyers in the Labour party to know what the law is. They know what is legal or illegal, but they continue to talk about illegal funding. There is no illegal funding. If the board of a company agrees that a donation should be made to a political party, and that political party accepts the donation, it is legal.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Ashby: Let me finish my point.
It is up to the board of directors to declare it in the accounts. If it is not declared, the funding is not illegal but the lack of declaration is. There are some very good lawyers in the Labour party and I have great respect for them, but they continually say that it is illegal money. It is not. It is illegal if it has not been authorised by the board of directors and, in those circumstances, it would have to be returned. If it was in excess of any authority or the company was bankrupt, it may be illegal. I do not know enough about bankruptcy because I am a criminal lawyer.
It has been suggested time and again by the Labour party that the Conservative party is blacker than black and the Labour party is whiter than white. If Labour Members had read some of the evidence of the Select Committee, they would have seen the evidence of an academic, Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky, who told us that all three major parties refuse to disclose individual donations. He said that it is hypocritical—I am trying to recall his words accurately because I am not allowed to quote from the document—for any party to throw stones in respect of this matter. He told us that during his research he went from party to party asking for a list of its largest donors. They all said no. He said that he went to Walworth road and was told that it had not hitherto disclosed the names of individual donors. Where is the argument? It is utter hypocrisy for the Labour party to suggest that it allows the names of individual donors to be given.

Miss Joan Lestor:: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashby: If Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky was lied to, I should be happy to give way to any Opposition Member who will say that the Labour party provides the names of donors. We will find out the answer tomorrow when we hear the evidence.

Miss Lestor: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the state of politics and what is coming across from this debate. I am a sponsored member of a trade union. It is not a secret because it is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Anyone can read in the accounts of any trade union how the Labour party receives money from trade unions because it is public knowledge and the Labour party publishes what it receives from the trade union movement. Conservative Members have made much of this because they know how much we get. Therefore, why is it wrong or undesirable for the Conservative party, in the same way, to publish the amount of money that it receives in donations from companies? I fail to understand that. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, it is

nothing to do with small individual donations. Why is the Conservative party so opposed to making public what we already make public and which the trade union has to make public by law? That is the difference between us.

Mr. Ashby: It has to be disclosed by law if one is sponsored by a trade union. It is important because it has to be registered in the Register of Members' Inter ests. We all know that we have to do that. That is very different from donations given freely to a political party.

Miss Lestor: By companies?

Mr. Ashby: Yes, by companies. We have heard enough about the nature of political sponsorship. That sort of donation has a tag on it and I have seen those tags used in the Chamber. Members of various unions get together and do what their union bids them do in the Chamber. That is wrong and I have often felt that such hon. Members are not truly independent. Donations to the Conservative party are independent of individual Members. There is no company that says, "Because we have donated £5,000 to the Conservative party we should have 30 per cent. of the votes." There is no company that says that is because it has donated £10,000, it should have a percentage of the votes in choosing a candidate or a percentage of the vote at conference. That is the difference.
We must think about whether there should he disclosure. Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky told us that although disclosure is good in theory it would not work in practice. He told us that it does not work in the United States, Germany or Italy. That is the sort of evidence which we have been hearing and which we hope to continue to hear in the Select Committee.
I do not want to continue much longer, but the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been undertaking a serious and important study. I supported that study, together with Labour Members, because I felt that there should he an inquiry into the funding of political parties. I thought that it was time that we looked into the question of funding to see which way we should go. I supported that; I was perhaps the one member of my party who did so. I hoped that we would have a serious discussion and hear evidence that would be helpful and useful to us from academics, the parties and other interested people, so that we could produce a report that would be far better than the sort of charter that has been flung across the table by the Opposition. I hoped for a report that would reveal deep thought and have all-party support—a very good report that everyone would consider.
I am sorry to say that our Committee deliberations have been rather hijacked by Opposition members of the Committee. They have taken them as an opportunity to do exactly the same as we have seen them doing in the Chamber. There has been innuendo, sleaze, rumour and disgraceful behaviour and a refusal to believe people—the sort of behaviour that is not worthy of an hon. Member. This is a very sad day for us, because I really hoped for a good, worthy report.
I started off in the Committee leaning towards disclosure. I felt that it would be a good thing for political parties to disclose donations above a certain level. I was not sure what that should be; I wanted to hear evidence as to whether it should be £100, £500, £1,000 or £5,000. I did not know whether it should apply only to companies, or to individuals and companies. I wanted to hear the evidence


and consider whether it was the right direction in which to go. I had an open mind, but I was leaning towards disclosure.
I have seen in the Chamber today and over the past few days and weeks what use is made of information. That information is used only to dig dirt, for sleaze and smears, and to behave dishonourably. And now I say that only over my dead body will I accept in the report a statement that there should be disclosure. That information is wanted for all the wrong reasons, not for the right ones.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I make a plea for concise speeches. A great many hon. Member wish to speak.

Mr. Chris Mullin: It was my idea—whether it was a good or a bad one, I am not sure—that the Select Committee should consider the financing of political parties. At the time, the Conservative members affected boredom. One of them said how difficult it would be for the public to take us seriously if we wasted our time on this issue. But, after they had affected boredom for 40 minutes, it became absolutely clear that, far from being bored, they were riveted by the subject. One of them told me that they were afraid that we would start asking where their money came from.
I am sorry that that is the way that the inquiry has gone, because this has been a disappointing debate. I particularly regret the contribution of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), and indeed that of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I thought that they were disappointingly partisan. There is a bigger issue at stake if one is a democrat, and one or two speakers have touched upon it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that our political culture was changing for the worse, and so it is. It is regrettable that, in our political life, money is now a greater feature of how a general election or by-election campaign is run, or how a party is funded. The more money that is required, the more dubious those resources become.
That is not a party political point. It affects all three main parties when they are in government. The Liberals, at least, are straightforward about it. Mention has been made today of the lavender list, and the name "Robert Maxwell" has been chucked around the Chamber. I do not think that that does the Labour party any credit. Why not be straightforward about it, because then people will start to take us seriously on the general principle that is at stake?
Any party in government is vulnerable to the charge that it is making decisions on the basis of vested interests. If the vested interests are secret, the party is even more vulnerable to that charge. It is a fact of life that one of the great mysteries of British politics is how the Conservative party is funded. It is a mystery not only to the British public at large, but also to most Conservative party members.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is rightly agreeing with me, is one of the democrats in the House, and it is always a pleasure to find myself in agreement with him. I know that there are other hon. Gentlemen who believe that the present state of

affairs cannot continue, because it is tainting the whole political process. We are all politicians and, whatever our party views, we have one thing in common: we care about how politicians are perceived outside the House.
During the course of this debate, I have been wondering whether members of the public listening to our deliberations today will feel better or worse about politicians and our political process. I am afraid that, after hearing all the speeches, with some honourable exceptions, they will feel worse, because the longer this kind of agonising goes on, the more our political process will be demeaned.
I will not get involved in trading the sort of insults that have been traded today. Quite enough has been said about who contributes what, and in what circumstances. I will not waste any time on that, but will merely draw the attention of the House to one or two principles that should be upheld in a democracy—and we all want to live in a democracy.
First, is it right in a democracy for any political party to be funded by donors whose names are secret, as are the amounts that they contribute? Powerful people always want to protect their interests; they do not do things out of the kindness of their hearts; they do them because they want influence. The only medicine for that is daylight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East quoted a United States Supreme Court judge. That is the best solution. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said that, after listening to today's deliberations, he had come to the conclusion that there should not be any disclosure. It is up to him how he justifies getting back on his own party political side. I was disappointed by that, because, as he said, he was one of those on the Committee who thought that it would be a good idea to investigate this subject. If he is concerned about the general effect of the political process, the answer is not more, but less, secrecy. That is surely the road down which most sensible people outside the House would expect us to be going.
The question of state aid has been raised. It was not one of my motives, when I made my suggestion to the Select Committee, that we should have state aid for political parties. Unlike other members of the Select Committee, I am not prepared to state my conclusions before I have heard the evidence, but I am so far unpersuaded that that is the solution to our problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that we should be concerned for the future rather than the past. Like him, I am prepared to draw a line in the sand, the jungle or wherever it happens to be, and look to the future.
There are one or two things on which there ought to be unanimity among democrats in the House and on the Committee. The first is that there must be proper disclosure of those who contribute to whatever political party.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am the first to admit that the hon. Gentleman has conducted himself with great reasonableness during the inquiry into funding. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Opposition have chosen to have this debate today, before the Labour party has given its evidence to the Select Committee?
Would it not have been better for this debate, if it were to take place at all, to have taken place after we had heard from the Labour party's witnesses? The three main


political parties would then have given their evidence, and we could then have reached conclusions and informed this debate rather better.

Mr. Mullin: It might have been better, but the fact is that we are having this debate today. It has been prompted not so much by the Select Committee's deliberations as by the departure of Mr. Nadir to northern Cyprus. I do not have any influence over his timetable. We are having this debate today, so we should try to address the issues today. Disclosure is fundamental, and it is not a controversial issue in other democracies. One of the puzzling things is that issues that have been tremendously controversial here do not appear to be controversial in other countries.
The second principle is that company donations should be placed on a footing similar to that for donations from other organisations, such as trade unions. That point should not be controversial. I shall probably get myself into trouble somewhere for saying that I am not all that disappointed that a Conservative Government passed legislation that obliged trade unions to hold a ballot on political funds every 10 years. That does not give me much trouble, and I believe that it was a healthy move.
As it turned out—I have no doubt that it was not the Government's intention—it was healthy for the trade unions. The trade union leaders had to get out and about among their members, and justify the political funds. They did so successfully, to the extent that one or two trade unions that had not had a political fund voted to have one. We should be grateful to the Conservative party to that extent.
Another simple principle is that there should be a limit on the size of donations. In the United States—I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I have got it wrong—the limit is about $250. We can have a debate about what the size should be. Some favour limits of between £5,000 and £10,000. That is not realistic. I favour some limit, although I do not lay down precise figures. We all have different figures in our heads. However, there should be a limit on the size of donations.

Mr. Kirkwood: The $250 is the figure that must be disclosed.

Mr. Mullin: I am sorry, I was wrong. In the United States, the figure of $250 applies to what should he disclosed. I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The figure that must be disclosed should be about $250, although we shall need to debate exactly what it should be.
There should also be a limit on the size of donations, whether by individuals or organisations which, of course, would be more than $250. We can have a debate about what the figure should be.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said—this point has been made in evidence to the Select Committee—that individuals should have a right to dispose of their properly taxed income as they please. I agree up to a point that individuals should have that right, but I believe that there is another right in a democracy. That right is for the electorate to know who is funding the organisations whose various programmes are contending for recognition. No absolute rights are involved, and one right has to be balanced against the other. Although we can argue about where to draw the line, a line should be drawn.
A point on which all democrats should be able to agree is that there should not be foreign donations. People who are not entitled to take part in our elections should not be allowed to contribute to the funding of one of the parties involved in political campaigning in elections. That is a simple principle which is readily accepted in other countries.
The Secretary of State for Employment said that the integrity of our system shone through, which was a surprising remark in light of the debate. Whatever else one can say about today's debate, one cannot say that it has shown up the integrity of our system. We have an opportunity to improve the integrity of our system and I want our system to be respected elsewhere in the world. Regrettably, that is not the case at the moment.
I shall be disappointed if our Select Committee divides on partisan lines on those simple points on which every democrat should agree. One objection that may be made is that, if the proposals are accepted, the amount coming into the main parties will go down. That is very possible. However, it may be a good thing rather than a bad thing for less money to be spent on the political process.
If the result of shedding daylight on the funding of our political system is that contributions go down, I for one as a democrat will be able to live with that. I believe that our political system will be healthier as a result.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I profoundly agree with some of the points made by previous speakers, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
I also noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), my constituency neighbour and the chairman of the party, said. It was a robust defence and a necessary defence. It was important for me and, I suspect, for hundreds of thousands of Conservatives that he laid to rest some of the scandals, rumours and charges that have gone careering around our public life. My only comment is that it was a defence of the system as is. That is what is under challenge. I shall give a good reason why I think that it is profoundly unsatisfactory as is.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory to watch the Prime Minister of Great Britain go to an international conference in Copenhagen which is important for our interests and to see him, the representative of us all—we all wish for the well-being of our country in its external relations—being besieged by inquiries about the funding of the Conservative party. It was a massive distortion and a deflection from purpose in government.
I give the other instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment fell into saying "we the Conservative party". Those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench are the Government of the United Kingdom. They have to act in the national interest and, from time to time, they have to rise above the mere partisan exchanges into which we enter with such vigour and, sometimes, enjoyment across the Floor of the House. It is not right that a Minister should defend the fund-raising activities of the Conservative party of which I am a member. My right hon. Friend is Her Majesty's Secretary of State and that in


itself shows the confusion in the public mind between the financing of a political party and the business of our country, as exemplified by the Government of our country.
There are matters of considerable principle behind this debate. Several hon. Members have identified the fact that we are discussing our public system. It is the only way in which, in a democracy, we can transmit our purpose through our institutions and through our Government. It is, therefore, the most basic principle that those institutions should be seen not to be corrupt in any way. I have used the expression, "like Caesar's wife"; like Caesar's wife, the Government should be above suspicion. When challenged on that point, I cannot think of any Caesar's wife who was above suspicion. In fact, they engaged in regicide as often as not, if I remember sufficiently my Suetonius. However, the principle is right. Governments should be above suspicion.
In the mass of charges and counter-charges, I, like every other hon. Member and certainly like every Conservative Member, wish to defend the integrity of my party. I am unable to defend it, because I cannot point to any published list of where the funds come from which would exorcise the malignity of the charges. I make that point as my principal purpose.
Political funding or contributions to funding are not, as the former Chancellor Lord Hailsham said, a matter merely of privity or the fact that we have a right to dispose of our money as we wish. I accept that it may be true of charities in general: charities such as the Red Cross and a number of others actively seek funds. The motives of the givers in all instances can be questionable. They may be honourable; many people give to charities in the hope of aggrandising themselves in the eyes of the community. The givers may subtly be trying to reach for honour and recognition. Many give for honourable reasons, but political parties are different because they are contending for the Government of the country. They therefore hold public policy decisions in their hands.
It is important that the public—that is you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone here—do not think or cannot conclude that there is something essentially corrupt in the process. I appreciate that these are grand words, but our suspicious minds will always lead us to do just that. As long as donations are hidden and screened by the arguments that the right of privacy gives us the right to donate very large sums to political parties, there will always be a question mark. Public policy should dictate that large sums of money should be identifiable in the accounts of a party.
The wider question, which has been touched on today, is that of integrity in public life. As a Conservative, I have to say that a seediness has been perceived by Conservatives in my constituency. It is with some diffidence that I mention the members of the Conservative Front Bench. I mention them because at the heart of our system—as
emphasised at the beginning of my remarks—is integrity in public life. I am not interested in private lives; we are all entitled to one. That integrity must be manifest in public life. I can only report to the House and to my party what my Conservative association and my constituents have identified.
There have been three Ministers of the Crown whose activities I cannot understand in the light of procedures for

Ministers published by the Cabinet Office. I cannot understand a Minister of the Crown accepting a holiday financed by the head of a foreign state. I cannot understand a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Secretary of State for the Environment—accepting the gift of moneys towards his pond. When I was growing up, the sense of integrity in public life would have meant that an honourable man would have resigned. Perhaps I am wrong. He would not only have been out of the Cabinet but out of public life because the demonstration of the flame of integrity is the one trust that the public have.
If we become disillusioned with our political processes, they are worth nothing. Our cry should be that the integrity of the institutions of state is the defence of each one of us as individual citizens. We look to the officers of the law for fairness because therein lies our freedom. The confidence with which we can look to the officers of the Crown is the confidence of our state. We diminish ourselves, but, much more, we diminish those whom we represent.
This is a great country; it is a great democracy. Why are we trying to defend the status quo and yesterday when the world is swimming in an avalanche of—for all I know—the most profound lies? Why should we be diminished by that when we can call a halt to it today? The chairman of the Conservative party could say tomorrow that we will open our accounts. I hope that he will do so. We are a political party; we have battles to fight and causes to maintain. We could then say that a political party has to cut its coat according to its cloth—perhaps that is what we should be doing too.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke of integrity in public life. It has come to my notice that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) misled the House this afternoon when referring to an article in Business Age. I have of course—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse an hon. Member of deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman has inadvertently and possibly unwittingly misled the House by stating that the article recently published in Business Age was going to be the subject of a full retraction. I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman through the Government Whip—[Interruption.] I am sorry for the interruption from the Government Whip. I am told that the editor of Business Age has issued a statement arising from what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. It reads:
"Business Age has never at any stage intended to and will not he publishing a retraction of its story. The gentleman's statement was therefore quite untrue.
I should like to know from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman, having not satisfied or informed himself of what the editor of Business Age was going to do, to have unwittingly misled the House by saying that the magazine was to issue a full retraction, quite apart from any minor corrections to do with any particular personality with which the magazine might deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will be aware that hon. Members are entirely responsible for the statements that they make in the Chamber.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We heard from a member of the Government Front Bench that there was no confirmation of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). In fact, we have given to the Whips Office for communication to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a copy of the statement from Business Age. The statement is on the magazine's letterhead and comes from Tom Rubython, the editor. It is quite categoric. I merely wish to place that on the record.

Mr. David Trimble: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), especially in view of the sentiments he expressed. Some Conservative Members have called today's debate a silly season or sleazy debate and there have been such elements in it. However, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised the tone of the debate, which is much to his credit and that of the House.
I also agree with some of the points made by some Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who said that the motion and the amendment created a dilemma. It creates a dilemma for our party because we can agree with elements of both. I have not yet read the Labour party's charter for party political funding, so I am a little reluctant to give Labour a blank cheque. Basically, we support the principle of the disclosure of donations. I am not sure whether it should be carried as far as requiring parties to publish full accounts, but we believe that donations should be disclosed.
I confess that what I understand to be in the Labour party's charter causes us some embarrassment. I believe that the trip wire for disclosure is a donation in the region of £5,000. I have seen that figure in the public prints. That would cause the Ulster Unionist party serious embarrassment because I am not aware of our ever having received a donation of that order. No doubt the trip wire could be set at an appropriate figure so that we could disclose something.
The principle of disclosure is right. Conservative Members complained about sleaze, smears and allegations. The simple answer to the complaints is that, if there were disclosures, there could be no smears or innuendos. The Conservatives are suffering from self-inflicted wounds in that respect. Secrecy inflames or creates suspicion which could be dispelled.
I may not be fully informed about the niceties, so I say with some trepidation that the position of Conservative central office is somewhat anomalous and dangerous. The controversy attaches not to the money raised through associations, which comes through the national union, but to the direct payments to central office, which is an anomalous body.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield -Mr N. Fowler) described himself as the chairman of the Conservative party, but my understanding is that that is not his job. Instead the right hon. Gentleman is the chairman of central office—a position to which he was not elected but appointed. Central office has its origin in the

private office of the Prime Minister and if we bear that fact in mind we see the danger for the Conservative party. If there is a suspicion regarding moneys going to what is in essence the Prime Minister's private office, that is getting close to home and it is fairly dangerous. I should have thought that for the good of the party it would be desirable to disclose the facts and to put the position of central office on a more regular basis. I know that there are movements within the Conservative party pressing for that to be done and for internal democracy within the party. I wish those movements well. It would be good for the health of the Conservative party and for the health of public and political life in this nation if there were some effective internal democracy.
As will be understood from the comments that I shall make later, I do not believe that one can separate the question of funding from the question of structure. The two are related. The line that the Conservatives have taken is simply to blame the Labour party and to say that it is just as bad, or worse, referring to its relationship with the unions. I am sure that Labour Members will acknowledge that there are anomalies in their relationship with the unions, too, which have given rise to some vulnerability.
I make my suggestion with trepidation, as I may not be aware of all the subtleties of the relationship, but I have often thought that there is a simple solution to the charges made and to the problems that the relationship with the unions creates for the Labour party. For historical reasons, that relationship is quite understandable. However, the legislation governing unions now contains the requirement for ballots on political funds and trade union members effectively have to opt whether to pay the political levy. Why does not the Labour party arrange that by saying that opting to pay the political levy is opting for membership of the party? Why do not all those persons simply pay the political levy as members of the party? The Labour party could work that idea through in detail. It would get rid of the problem of a union, or a person controlling a union, appearing to buy votes, because the votes would be the votes of real people who had opted, by paying the political levy, to join the party. That should solve the problem.
I cannot mention the political levy without mentioning what strikes me, as a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, as a serious anomaly. There are trade unionists in Northern Ireland, some of whom opt to pay the political levy and thereby help to finance the Labour party. Yet what does the Labour party do to those trade unionists who fund it? It bars them from membership. Is that creditable? I believe that by now the Labour party headquarters computers are programmed to eject immediately from the system any correspondence with the postcode BT, or automatically to generate a refusal if any such correspondence gets in. The Labour party takes people's money but refuses them membership. That is not creditable.
I notice that the Labour motion refers to contributions from persons overseas. The principle behind the reference is healthy, but I understand—I hope that hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—that the Labour party maintains an organisation which people who live outside the United Kingdom can join to show their support for the principles of the party. No doubt such people pay a membership fee; there may or may not be a financial relationship. I believe that the membership of the support group, if I may call it that, is not limited to British


nationals, but that anyone may join. That creates the anomaly whereby anybody in the world can support the Labour party—except 1·5 million citizens of the United Kingdom—

Rev. Martin Smyth: Who live in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: Who live in Northern Ireland and are banned. Those are the only people in the world who are banned from the Labour party.

Mr. Nigel Evans: They are lucky.

Mr. Trimble: As I have said, we cannot separate funding from structure, but there is a serious point to be made about overseas support. I greatly regret that there is no Member in the Chamber who represents the Social Democratic and Labour party, because in that context we must mention the way in which that party not only receives but solicits overseas support. We know of the dinners held in Dublin to raise funds and the efforts made to raise funds from Irish Americans. Irish Americans from across the Atlantic are clearly persons overseas and money is raised from them. In the past the SDLP has accepted funding not only from individuals but from a body known as the National Democratic Foundation, which is closely linked to the United States Democratic party.
I believe that the SDLP received six-figure sums from the National Democratic Foundation, sums in excess of the total income of the Ulster Unionist party. In addition, the party received specialist assistance, training and expertise. Its members were regularly sent to the United States to be trained. That was all done by an element of the Democratic party and now that the party is in the White House that element is talking about sending special envoys to Northern Ireland. That is the degree of the intimate relationship between that element of the Democratic party and the SDLP.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is referring specifically to the National Democratic Foundation. Does not a large proportion of the money involved come ultimately from Government sources, because it can go through the Republican fund or the Democratic fund? When we talk about overseas Government funding of political parties, we must mention that anomaly.

Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for adding that information and for pointing out that Government funds can be laundered through that foundation, which enables the Government of another country, or a major political party in another country, to interfere directly in the internal affairs of part of the United Kingdom. That is not a healthy state of affairs.
I should add that the funding from the National Democratic Foundation has ceased within the last year or two, causing an immediate financial crisis for the SDLP. However, that is another issue and I shall not go into it now.
I said that one could not consider the question of funding apart from the question of structure. I also assert that we must examine not only funding but expenditure and the reasons for expenditure. As has been illustrated by the frequent references to spending during the general election year, the major item of expenditure for political

parties is the general election. The anomaly is that there is no limit on national expenditure and campaigns. Many of the problems would be resolved if there were such a limit.
I am sure that hon. Members know that every political party in the United Kingdom, except one, supports the idea of working out limits on national expenditure in general election campaigns. The one party that does not support that idea is the Conservative party, which, of course, adopted that position out of self-interest, because it thought that it could outspend the other parties. However, I am not sure whether it did significantly outspend the other parties at the general election—

Mr. Riddick: No.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Trimble: If we had full disclosure of expenditure we could resolve the question. I hear hon. Members asserting across the Chamber that the Conservative party did or did not outspend other parties. I am not sure whether it had that financial advantage.
If there was a realistic limit on expenditure the need to raise funds would not be felt so keenly. Sometimes fund-raisers may go too far in their efforts. It is curious that we have financial limits on the least important aspect—constituency—spending-but no limit on national expenditure. That should be put right.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall make only a few final comments. We do not support the idea of state funding. Some hon. Members have said that Short money is different, but one wonders why. What is needed is adequate support for research by individual members, so that they can fund the research that they need to undertake in order to discharge their duties in the House. If there was adequate research support for hon. Members, there would be no need for Short money.
Reference has been made to trade union legislation and it has been acknowledged that there is a public interest in the regulation of unions because of the important role that they play in society and in the economy. Political parties are also important. There is also a case for regulation, or at least the setting of minimum standards, with regard to the structure and conduct of political parties generally.
I know that that is an awkward topic and not perhaps one that we would want to be resolved by legislation. However, the issue is important and it should be addressed. Perhaps that debate could be carried forward through the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: If a martian were to appear in the Strangers Gallery and it did not know the background to this debate, it would reach a conclusion about the sheer hypocrisy of Opposition Members. The Opposition will regret having raised this subject when there are so many other important issues on the agenda.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others have referred to state funding. I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann about that. If we were to ask the taxpayer to pay for political campaigning when the Government are trying to rein back on public expenditure in an attempt to control and contain it, we would meet a very negative response. Furthermore, every opinion poll and survey that I have seen shows that at least 75 or 80 per


cent. of the public are against public funding of political campaigning. We know very well what the Labour party is after. Labour is broke and it wants the taxpayer to bail it out. It is as simple as that.
A great deal has been said today about Asil Nadir. I want to declare an interest because I am one of the 60,000-odd small shareholders in Polly Peck. It has been an interesting topsy-turvy investment. My stockbroker bought my shares for me at about £1·50 without my consent as he has discretion on my account. I recall that they rose to £4. slipped back to £2 and then came down to about 20p. I believe that they are now worth 0·02p. That has certainly been an interesting investment and my holding is still worth something, so I have an interest to declare. No one is more anxious than I am to see Mr. Nadir face charges in the courts of this country.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. At the moment, the only thing that Mr. Nadir is guilty of is jumping bail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a fair point. Polly Pcck was a blue chip company. It was a member of the FT-SE30. The company fooled top merchant banks, and every institution in the City had a holding in Polly Peck. The company fooled them and the Tory party.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Razzall, the Liberal party treasurer, said that the Liberal party would also have taken that money so long as it was properly declared. However, when a party takes money from a company, it does not know at the time that that money is not going to be declared in the accounts. That is why I believe that parties should publish accounts in which they should show what corporate donations they have received. If parties did that, it would meet many of the accusations levelled at the Conservative party in respect of corporate donations, some of which are not being declared, not through the fault of the Conservative party, but because that company or a subsidiary of that company has been negligent in that respect.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said. He said that if there is evidence that the money was improperly procured, it will be paid back. I believe what he said, and it was confirmed by the chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
If Mr. Asil Nadir really thought that he was buying favours, he was bitterly disappointed. I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), but was prevented by Opposition Members from saying what I wanted to say. I wanted to make a point about British Airways. British Airways had given money to the Tory party for a prolonged period. It was one of our biggest corporate donors.
I recall very sensitive and delicate discussions and negotiations taking place about routes to Tokyo and about slots at Heathrow. British Airways was very disappointed when it did not get what it wanted. It then cut off its subscription to the Conservative party. That is surely an example of the Conservative party, when it forms the Government, not being bought off by a large corporate donor or being unduly influenced.
I had the privilege of being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for Transport at the time of those discussions. As one of the parties to the

discussions was a donor to the Tory party, Ministers looked even more carefully at the merits of the case and were even more wary.
We can see such behaviour across the board. It is clear from certain defence contracts when defence companies happen to be donors to the Tory party. They often do not get what they want. What about the big brewers? The Government have done them no favours in respect of the beer law reforms, yet among their number are some of the biggest donors to the Conservative party. Some members of the Eurotunnel consortia are donors to the Tory party, but I can state quite candidly that we have not exactly done them too many favours.
That leads me to the question of private donors. I feel very strongly that if someone makes a donation to a political party, to a charity or to any other organisation, he is entitled to total anonymity, because if it is revealed that he made a large donation that individual will be inundated with other requests.
I have made a few small modest contributions to charities in my constituency. On one occasion, although I requested anonymity, the charity gave my donation publicity. Some 40 or 50 other organisations then wrote to me asking for a similar contribution. That is why I feel very strongly that, if any individual makes a donation, it must be up to that person to decide whether that information should be made public.
Exactly the same applies to foreign donors. If foreign donors want to donate money to a political party, why should they not do that? If they feel that our free market system and policies on employment law and trade unions will benefit their corporation and trade, why should those foreign donors not give money to the party that is likely to form a Government who will further the system of free enterprise that will benefit their companies? If they want anonymity as private individuals, so be it.
However, if there are particularly large donations to any party, it would probably be a good thing if that individual could be persuaded to renounce anonymity. I certainly would not insist on that and I would not insist on its appearing in a party's accounts. I would certainly not insist on it appearing in Conservative party accounts.
We have heard many different arguments this afternoon. No party in the House is whiter than white. We have heard a great deal about how the Labour party is financed by the trade unions and, in that respect, I recall the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) quoted trade union leaders such as Tom Sawyer and others, including John Edmonds. They pay their money and they expect to have a say in how their party is run. Not only do they pay their money; they expect to have a direct say in how candidates are selected and in policy formation. Not one corporate donor to the Tory party has ever insisted on that.
Opposition Members have expressed a great deal of cant, hypocrisy and humbug. Let us consider some of the large donors. The Maxwell saga has not yet been unscrambled. What about the four peers in the House of Lords who were on the Maxwell pay books? Some of them made large private donations to the Labour party, but none of that has come out. The Social and Liberal Democrats have received money over the years from people like Union Jack Hayward and other large donors,


including Lord Sainsbury. We also heard again today that the Labour party has taken money from firms such as Northern Foods, B and Q and others.
The issue is a simple one and, therefore, I feel that the martian would be appalled by the sheer hypocrisy demonstrated in the Chamber today. The Opposition could have debated one of the great issues of the day, but they chose to pick on party political funding. They will regret that for the simple reason that, if one lives in a glasshouse, one should not throw lumps of concrete around. That is why I urge hon. Members to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to chuck out the motion.

Mr. Alan Meale: I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose speech addressed the true issue behind the debate. We should examine the current funding system, because it is not working, and is causing anxiety to hon. Members of every political party.
That concern is easy to understand when we consider what happened during the general election, when tens of millions of pounds were spent on national advertising campaigns. It is not surprising that such activity has been described as sleazy, when one considers the money that was thrown at public relations companies to push forward one political party or another. It is important to recall the massive amounts of money that were spent on advertising billboards before and after the general election. After all, people thought that that election was to be held before the election date in April.
It is amazing to hear Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, making accusations about particular individuals who try to raise funds through certain organisations that have been associated with the Labour party since it inception—the trade unions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke about the funds collected by trade unions in Northern Ireland and the restrictions that are placed on union members. I hope that that system is examined by the Labour party.
It is quite extraordinary for Conservative Members to turn around and throw the blame at Opposition Members. In my constituency, I was sent information time and time again by Conservative party members and supporters which provided me with evidence of meetings and fund-raising activities organised by Lord Beaverbrook to try to raise funds in Mansfield for the Tory party. That money was designed to help the party in its push to win the constituency at the general election.
Those efforts should have had some effect, because in the previous Parliament I had the smallest majority, at 56. They did not seem to work, however, because my majority increased by 16·9 per cent. to nearly 12,000. All I can say is, "Keep sending the letters."
It is scandalous for Conservative Members to say that money has not been donated to their party from abroad. It is widely known that, in the past three years, Ministers and other hon. Members have gone around the world to try to get people to register to vote. Their purpose was also to gather money for the coffers of the Conservative party. It is misleading for Conservative Members to say that they

have not been involved in such activity.
The activities of Asil Nadir and the revelation that he gave such a gigantic amount of money to the Conservative party for its general election campaign funds have caused great concern. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should try to justify his behaviour. The collapse of Polly Peck did not occur that long ago, but it was not as recent as some hon. Members have tried to suggest today. The warning signs about that company, however, were apparent for some time before its collapse.
We know from evidence that has now been produced that Polly Peck was in a rocky state for some time. Perhaps one reason that Mr. Nadir was not successful in his attempt to get some kind of honour, despite his huge donations to the Conservative party, was that the future of his company looked rocky.
It is no credit to the House to say that the Conservative party is not the only political party to be caught out in political donations that led to honours. Political parties on both sides of the House have put people forward for honours because of donations from those individuals. The sooner that practice stops the better.
We must be honest with ourselves and accept that sleazy activities took place. We should take note of what has happened recently—for example, a Minister of the Crown sending a watch to Mr. Nadir, engraved with the slogan, "Don't let the buggers get you down." That Minister is still in office. What about the expenses-paid trips provided for hon. Members by companies such as that owned by Asil Nadir? Those individuals not only received free tickets to visit foreign parts, but stayed in an hotel owned by Mr. Asil Nadir. In one instance, that occurred two days before he skipped bail and escaped abroad.
Rumours and innuendo are rife that Members of the British Parliament have been loaned, given or offered properties at advantageous prices in northern Cyprus. Some of them are owned by Greek Cypriots, who are now refugees and no longer live in that occupied area of Cyprus. Such is the behaviour that has gone on, yet some people have tried to say that it does not matter. It does matter, because it lowers the tone of the Chamber and the reputation of everyone who sits in it, whatever his party. It is quite disgraceful that such behaviour has gone on.
We must decide what on earth we are going to do about such activities. We need to introduce, as quickly as possible, limits on spending by political parties. We also need to set a limit on the funds that arc collected for election campaigns. We also need to limit the size of donations; otherwise, undue influence could be brought to bear. We must also not be shy about the fact that the shareholders of companies, individual householders and voters have a right to know about funding. We must reveal the wherewithal and the source of donations. We also need to ban donations by foreign individuals.
It is no good the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) saying that the nature of political funding does not matter. It does. Not long ago, we were at war with Iraq, the leader of which is regarded by many hon. Members as an absolute maniac. It would not be beyond his imagination, however, to start to throw a bit of money around in Britain. Before the war, his Foreign Minister used to visit London regularly, and it is a well-known fact that he used to lose up to £250,000 a month at the casino tables in London and elsewhere.
Large amounts of money can be thrown around by Governments—at such times, friendly ones, or hostile ones of the future. We must not allow either Governments or foreign business men or women to offer large sums of money to parties as that may influence the political direction of our country.
I echo what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has said. It is time for us to clean up our act in this place. It is time for us to get ourselves together and introduce a system which is clean and tidy and which people can Just.

Mr. David Shaw: Opposition Members have chosen a debate that has backfired on them because much of their case is based on lies, rumours and half-truths. However, what is true is that Maxwell supported the Labour party and that there is a peer sitting on the Labour Front Bench in the House of Lords who took £750,000 from the pensioners—it was pension fund money. That peer sits there today with the full support of the Labour party and its leader. He sits there, having been responsible for managing £80 million that went walkabout—that is about the same amount that has gone walkabout in Asil Nadir's company. I hope that Lord Donoughue will have the courage of his convictions and pay back the money. When will those on the Labour Front Bench take away their support for Lord Donoughue? When will they say, "Enough is enough, Lord Donoughue—get off our Front Bench"?
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) failed to disclose the contributions made by Maxwell to the secret fund that was used by Michael Foot to oppose the Boundary Commission. Why was the fund so secret? What bank accounts did the money come from? Was it solely money that Maxwell put up, or did it come from other sources as well? We certainly did not find that out from the right hon. Lady.
The main issue to which I want to draw the attention of the House is what is happening in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The financing of the Labour party in Monklands is in a dreadful state. The trade unions have an iron grip on the party. The Labour executive in Scotland said that the Labour party in Monklands had no rules to run itself. The leader of the Labour party is a lawyer but the Labour party in his constituency has no rules to run itself. The same Scottish Labour party report has criticised the Labour council group for having no rules to run itself.
In those circumstances, is it surprising that about 25 family members of councillors have become council employees? Is it surprising that party members get family members jobs with the Monklands district council? Is it surprising that the highest number of employees per thousand population of any council in Scotland can be found in Monklands district council? Is it surprising that local newspapers in Monklands have described a meeting of the direct works department as being like a meeting of the Labour party because one cannot tell the difference between the works department and the Labour party in Monklands? Is it surprising that a £10 million shopping centre development is now costing pensioners and council taxpayers £1 million a year? There is corruption and nepotism, and there are transactions that have not been explained.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide. This debate is about the funding of political parties, not the domestic affairs of a specific council.

Mr. Shaw: At the beginning, I was careful to point out that party financing in Monklands and the organisation and structure there is so corrupt and integrated that the decision-making processes of the council are controlled by the trade unions. The trades unions control the Labour party in Monklands and therefore can award themselves more jobs and keep the whole process going by diverting public money to the Labour party through trade union sources. That money belongs to the council and the public.
As has been said, it is also a question of company law. I shall refer to the way in which company law is being abused in Monklands. For example, the leader of Monklands council has loans from Scottish Enterprise which went to one company. However, the money was diverted to another company and, as a consequence, £100,000 of taxpayers' money has been lost. The council leader's brother, who is in partnership with him, is being sued by the Inland Revenue for the non-payment of £44,000 in taxes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide. We are talking about contributions to political parties but he has hardly referred to that. I ask him to come back to the debate and not refer to the business of local councils.

Mr. Shaw: The key point is that the council leader, Mr. Jim Brooks, is an active supporter, both financially and otherwise, of the Labour party in Monklands. While I realise that some aspects of the debate relate to the national Labour party and the national Conservative party, the Labour party in Monklands is involved with the national Labour party—it is controlled and run by the national Labour party. Corruption in the Labour party in Monklands, which the Leader of the Opposition has failed to do anything about, is relevant to the debate. Company law and taxation law are being abused.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: I would like to give way but we are running out of time and I have a lot to get through.
There are serious allegations that the Labour party in Monklands is being supported by a council leader who has not always paid national insurance contributions for his employees. As a consequence, many employees may well lose part of their state pensions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation for the point that he is making. He is certainly not satisfying the Chair that he is not going wide of the debate, and I ask him to come back to it.

Mr. Shaw: I hope that I have made it clear that money, which should have been used to pay national insurance contributions for employees of the company run by the council leader, has ended up in the Labour party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What does that have to do with contributions to political parties?

Mr. Shaw: It is about contributions and the fact that money has ended up in the Labour party to support the re-election campaign of the right hon. and learned


Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. His campaign for re-election has been based on corrupt money. The Conservative party has been accused of fighting an election with corrupt money from Asil Nadir.

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was a privilege to be a Member of Parliament and that we could not abuse someone outside who did not have the right to speak in the House. Basically, no one on Monklands district council has been charged with corruption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Shaw: As I said, we are being criticised on the basis of allegations against Mr. Asil Nadir and contributions that have ended up in the Conservative party. I am saying that the election campaign of the Leader of the Opposition was funded and supported by illegal moneys that had been diverted from the public purse to his own ends. The most appalling cover-up has been put in place.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully realise the dilemma that you are in with the speech of the hon. Gentleman. Surely there is a rule in the House that an hon. Member must notify another hon. Member before he raises any matter relating to that hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in no dilemma at all. There is a courtesy—it is not a rule—that an hon. Member must notify another hon. Member if he wants to raise a matter relating to that hon. Member. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has done that but it is a matter for him.

Mr. Graham: On a further point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that it is a point of order, because many other hon. Members want to speak, and time is limited.

Mr. Graham: I should like your advice and guidance on this matter. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said that the election campaign of the Leader of the Opposition was funded illegally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Dover is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Shaw: I can assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that on a number of occasions, even to the point of risking the wrath of the Speaker, I have tried to confront the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that I wanted to raise this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been here because he should know that I had put my name down to speak in the debate. He knew that I was likely to try to raise the issue. He saw me in the Chamber earlier.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he has just made a serious accusation of a criminal offence, and has named individuals in connection with it. Does he have the courage to repeat that allegation outside the cloak of privilege?

Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear that those accusations have been made outside the House. They are part of a serious investigation by the Scottish Office. I have every

confidence that, if there is any justice in Scotland, the investigation will result as soon as possible in the police formalising a full investigation and charges being laid. I believe that the matter is serious. The Leader of the Opposition has had every opportunity to do something about it.
The position is so serious that I have discovered in the past few days that the right thon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is very worried. Although his only statement to date has been, "I am not in a position to comment"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist now. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide. He must get back to the debate. If he does not do so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Shaw: In the office of the Leader of the Opposition there is a man called Mr. Murray Elder, who has attempted to make a cover-up. As far as I am aware, he is funded by party political funds. Mr. Murray Elder has contacted a constituent of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take no point of order.

Mr. Meale: It is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It had better be a point of order.

Mr. Meale: It is a point of order. An allegation was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I want to put it on the record that the person who was named was funded by Short money, which is money from the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

8.31

Mr. David Winnick: The best that one can say about the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is that they are characteristic of him. If he believes that they are true, he will take the first opportunity to repeat them outside the House. There is no reason why he should not do so today.
I declared my interest last week. My constituency party receives a rather limited sum from a trade union during general election campaigns. The debate that the Opposition have initiated is perfectly justified. In view of some of the criticisms that have been heard today, the serious allegations that have been made and the position of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, it would have been wrong if we had not had the debate.
I tabled a question to the Attorney-General last week in which I asked him how many hon. Members had made representations to him about Polly Peck. As many hon. Members will be aware, the Attorney-General replied that seven hon. Members had made such representations. Out of those seven, we know the identities of three. Only one of those three had a constituency interest.
It would have been appropriate for the four remaining Members—I take it that they are Conservative Members—to declare before today or during today's debate why they made representations to the Attorney-General about


a prosecution case that had not come to court. What purpose and what motivation did they have in making such representations? If there was no constituency interest, why did they make representations to the Attorney-General, either orally or in writing?
I deplore the way in which, in response to later questions tabled by me, the Attorney-General has made it virtually impossible—the word "virtually" is not even necessary, he has made it impossible—for Members of Parliament to table any further questions about Mr. Nadir. We have been gagged. As a result of what the Attorney-General said to me at the end of last week, it is not possible to table any questions on representations by hon. Members about Polly Peck. It is not the role of the Attorney-General to stop us tabling such questions. After all, if I had not tabled the original question, we would not have known that seven Tory Members of Parliament had made representations to the Attorney-General.
I wonder how many representations have been made by Tory Members of Parliament about prosecution cases other than Polly Peck and Maxwell which have not come to court. There is bound to be anxiety, especially in view of the financial contribution that Mr. Nadir made to the Conservative party.
Last week, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, and again today, the chairman of the Tory party denied that there was any question of a connection between large contributions to the Conservative party and honours or influence. We can make up our own minds about that, but the fact remains that since 1980, 18 life peerages and 82 knighthoods have been given to those involved with companies which have made the largest donations—at least £17 million in the past 10 years.
It may be that the 18 life, peers and 82 knights would have received their honours regardless of any company contributions to the Conservative party. However, I wonder how many people in Britain really believe that. How many people believe that there is no connection between making a large and continuing financial contribution to the Tory party and receiving honours? As for influence, much of the legislation introduced by the Conservative Govenment in the past 10 years, including tax laws and tax concessions, favours the very rich.
Mr. Nadir did not receive his knighthood. I am sure that Conservative Members are pleased about that. Yes, it would appear that Mr. Nadir craved a knighthood and did not receive one. However, it is likely that if investigations had not taken place—informal investigations in the first place, followed by serious charges against him—and Mr. Nadir had continued to make contributions, he would have received his knighthood. None of us would have been particularly surprised if that had happened. So one cannot say that our case is undermined because one person who has fled justice did not receive an honour.
Opposition Members do not suggest that there is an automatic connection. No one suggests that it is so simplistic. No one suggests that if a person makes a large contribution or several large contributions to the Tory party, individually or through one's company, he receives a knighthood, life peerage or some other honour. Of course, it is not as simple as that. But I suggest, as my hon. Friends have suggested, that there is some connection. The sooner that such connections are broken, the better.
It is interesting to note that the Conservative party has not received a favourable press on this matter. The editorial in the Evening Standard last week after the right

hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) had given evidence to the Select Committee was headed "Come, come, Sir Norman." It was critical of the evidence that he gave to the Committee. Writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, Paul Johnson—we all know how enthusiastic converts can be—criticised the way in which the Tory party finances itself. He made the connection between contributions and honours. So the allegations are not simply some Labour smear. There are questions to be answered.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) said, why on earth did the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—a Minister of the Crown—consider it right and proper, after serious charges had been made against Mr. Nadir, to send him a watch with that vulgar and abusive message? Why did he believe that the Crown Prosecution Service was not carrying out its duties and responsibilities properly? I certainly believe that that Minister should resign, especially in view of the further matters which have arisen. It is nothing personal. It so happens that, in many respects, I believe that he has done a useful job in Northern Ireland, however strongly I disagree with him. That does not alter the fact that what has come to light is a resignation matter.
On three occasions, I have introduced ten-minute rule Bills designed to reform the system of party funding and electoral expenditure. As I have argued in the House previously, I believe full disclosure to be essential. I cannot accept the argument that as voting is secret in this country, so contributions should be secret. The most effective way to undermine allegations of there being connections between contributions and honours and so on would be to do away with secret, underhand methods and publish full details.
The Labour party already discloses a considerable amount, but if it is felt necessary, in the public interest, to disclose more, my party should do so. All parties represented in the House should follow the path of full disclosure, certainly above a certain limited sum. I do not wish to stop companies donating, but there should be a political fund for those wishing to donate.
Some people believe that trade unions have had political funds only since the Conservatives came to office. That is wrong. Since 1913, trade unions have not been able to donate a penny for political purposes without establishing a political fund. The Conservatives have simply made it essential for unions to re-run the ballot every 10 years. Prior to that, as I say, no trade union could contribute money unless a political fund was in existence. It had to be set up by members after a ballot. Moreover, any trade unionist who does not wish to contribute can contract out.
Consider the way in which large companies donate money to the Tory party. The disclosure that is necessary exists only because of changes introduced by the then Labour Government in 1967. But there is no balloting. If a shareholder disagrees with the company's approach, he can attend a board meeting, but he will have little influence, because we know how company annual general meetings are organised.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out that the amount spent on behalf of a candidate at a general election is tightly controlled. If a candidate exceeds that sum and wins, he may appear before a court and can be disqualified. That is right and


nobody is suggesting that that rule should be altered. Nobody would suggest that it should be possible to buy votes. Control exists to ensure fairness.
If that is the case on the local scene, why should the political parties at a general election be able to spend as much as they like? There is no limit. The fact of there being no limit in that case undermines what we are trying to establish locally. That is why I say that we should reach agreement, though I would not put a figure on it now. It is not necessary to be that precise at this stage. If agreement could be reached on an all-party basis to place controls on the amount that may be spent at a general election, we should have gone a long way towards achieving our goal.
Conservative Members have suggested that we want state funding. I do not know how many of my hon. Friends are in favour of such a system, but I believe there is an argument for a degree of state funding. Today, there are constant accusations flying about. We accuse the Conservative party of receiving money along the lines suggested in this debate. Conservative Members in turn accuse Opposition Members of receiving money from trade unions. Is there not a case for saying that the parties represented in the House—parties which at least have electoral credibility and receive some electoral support—should receive money?
If it is said that that system would be wrong because ordinary citizens should not have to contribute, one must ask what view is taken of Short money. How many people have written protesting about Short money? That began when the Conservatives were in opposition in 1975, and people have not objected, for example, to the number of political assistants of Conservative Ministers or the way in which they are funded. I do not object, because the same would happen if Labour were in office.
Let us remember that we are paid out of taxpayers' money. So why should we take the view that if we had a degree of state funding, it would be deeply resented by the general public? I do not believe that they would object and, in any event, there is a good case for some state funding. I wish to make it clear that I do not want to stop people contributing. That must he permissible in a democracy.
Conservative Members who strenuously oppose state funding should recall that every candidate who stands for election—whatever the party, major or minor, and however fringe the candidate—receives assistance. Postal delivery costs money and is financed by the taxpayer. How many Conservative Members have said at the hustings or in the House, "I do not want to receive such assistance during the election campaign"? It is all taxpayers' money, so let us put an end to the argument that any state funding along the lines that my hon. Friends and I have suggested would undermine democracy.
We in this country, on the whole, have a clean democracy. I assure Conservative Members that I am totally genuine in my views on the subject. We are concerned for the integrity of public life. We had a clean democracy in the 1960s and 1970s, but that did not stop us introducing the Register of Members' Interests. Some hon. Members argued at the time that it was not necessary because we were all honourable. I am not aware of any hon. Member who now argues against the existence of that register.
Further reforms along the lines that my hon. Friends and I, and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have suggested are necessary. But, above all, we require full disclosure of money coming to political parties. That is an essential reform which, once introduced, would be welcomed. Nobody would then suggest that we should return to the situation that exists now. I hope that more than one Conservative Member will tonight accept that it is essential for the status quo to come to an end. Some basic and essential reforms on political expenditure are vital for public life and political integrity in Britain.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not common courtesy and normal practice in the House for an hon. Member who makes a speech in which he makes accusations to remain in his place at the conclusion of his speech to hear the following speaker, especially when it is clear that the following speaker intends to put a point of view based on the hon. Gentleman's speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a common courtesy in the House that, on resuming his seat after making a speech, an hon. Member remains to hear the following speaker. I have noticed for some time that, sadly, that courtesy and, I must say, others, have not been observed. I, too, hope that in future hon. Members will observe the common courtesies of the House. I regret that that has not been the case in recent times and that many hon. Members have been guilty in that respect.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: It was refreshing, after the catalogue of unsubstantiated smears from the Labour Front Bench, to hear the comments of hon. Members on the Labour and Liberal Back Benches. Fortunately, some serious speeches have been made and I am anxious to reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who put the argument for state funding. I am glad that at least one Labour Member had the honesty to be clear about his policy.
There are two objections to state funding. The first is that the people of Britain clearly do not want it. We got a taste of the way in which people would react to it from the reaction to the decision of the House to increase our office allowances hugely last year, a decision carried mainly by Labour votes. The decision was greatly resented in my constituency and that of many others. At a time when people are tightening their belts, the idea that we should be awarding ourselves extra money in some shape or form is not well received by the public.
The second and more important argument against state funding is that I object to it being suggested as a cleaner system which is less vulnerable to abuse. It is striking that in almost every European country in the last year—for example, in France, Spain, Germany and most noticeably in Italy—there has been a series of scandals, even though each country has state funding. It is clear that state funding does not end political scandals. It merely creates more opportunities.
We in this country are fortunate to have a decent and clean system and an important reason for that was given by the hon. Member for Walsall, North when he spoke of


limits on spending in the constituencies. Calculations show that the Americans spend 16 times more per elector during the elections than we spend in this country.
At the national level, the crucial reason why there is no corruption and there is a fair balance between the parties is the fact that there are controls on television. One cannot buy television commercials as one can in America. The system of party political broadcasts means that, by and large, every party gets a fair crack of the whip. The Opposition parties get a bigger crack of the whip than one might expect according to the proportion of votes cast.
If we are to maintain a voluntary system, which I believe that the people of this country want, we must then ask: does the money given voluntarily to all parties in the House buy or influence decisions? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said that a number of recent decisions, including those on the brewers and British Airways, clearly demonstrated that when there was a clash between the interests of the people who had given money to the Conservative party and the interests of the country, the Government put the interests of the country first.
Many of my hon. Friends will know that there is great unhappiness among landowners and property owners about the proposals on leasehold reform—the Duke of Westminster has withdrawn funds from the party because of it. I am delighted to say that such actions have had no influence on the Government's decision. The Opposition have today produced no evidence to suggest that money given to the Conservative party has influenced Government decisions, which is the critical test.
What a contrast the Labour party offers. Does money buy influence in the Labour party? Of course it does. It is included in its constitution—it buys 40 per cent. of the votes in the selection of candidates and 40 per cent. of the votes in the election of the leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Graham rose: rose—

Mr. Milligan: I shall not give way as time is short.
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to clean up his act, but all that he is trying to do is to eliminate the union share in the selection of candidates and the election of leader. He is not trying to eliminate the block vote. What a protest there would be if the shareholders or directors of Polly Peck or British Airways had a block vote at the Conservative party conference. There has been one member, one vote at the Conservative party conference for a long time.
The case of Mr. Asil Nadir has been frequently mentioned. He paid a lot of money—£440,000. What influence did he buy? What favourable decisions did he receive?

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milligan: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Nadir received 10 minutes with the then chainnan of the Conservative party to say how the presentation of the poll tax was going wrong. Tens of thousands of people agreed with Mr. Nadir and gave their advice free of charge. I think that Mr. Nadir's advice was helpful in that respect, but he received nothing else—what a contrast to Labour. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will succeed, but the omens are not favourable. He will not eliminate the sponsorship of individual candidates.
I was interested to see what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) had to say. Incidentally, I gave her warning that I would raise the issue on the Floor of the House. She had written to Labour's Deputy Chief Whip to say that she was nervous that Aslef's sponsorship could be withdrawn from her. She was frank and open, as is Labour party policy. She said that she was keen to be a member of the Select Committee on Transport. She is reported to have written to the Deputy Chief Whip as follows:
'"If I was a member of the select committee,' she adds, with compelling logic, 'it would, should it ever arise, be difficult (for Aslef) to argue that I was not money well spent."'
The link between money given and the influence that the unions expect to derive from it is clear.

Mr. Riddick: Like my hon. Friend, I had hoped to speak in tonight's debate, but he has been luckier than I have. I wrote to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). Someone who I happen to know overheard a conversation in one of the buildings in the House of Commons in which a researcher to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that she had been told to find out the dirt on Graham Riddick. As I was raising the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Labour party felt it necessary to find out the dirt on me. Of course, there is none, as my hon. Friend will know.

Mr. Milligan: I am shocked to hear of that revelation, but it will be a fruitless search as there is no dirt on my hon. Friend.
However, we have seen a gross act of hypocrisy from the Labour party Front Bench team which has raised a number of issues. We were accused of having received anonymous donations. Those who give money to the Labour party on the same basis have long been anonymous, as have those who have given money to the Liberal party. We have been accused of accepting money from foreign Governments, but that has been denied by every Conservative Member who has spoken.
I used to work on The Sunday Times, which was a responsible newspaper in those days. We published an interesting story—

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milligan: No, I shall not give way—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is hard of hearing.
At that time The Sunday Times was the first to reveal that the National Union of Miners was seeking money from Colonel Gaddafi and had sent representatives to Tripoli to obtain finance for the miners' strike. It was later revealed that the NUM received £150,000 from Libya and also received money from the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. In that period, the NUM paid thousands of pounds to the Labour party in affiliation fees. I wonder if the Labour party will now recognise that that was tainted foreign money which should be returned. I suspect not.
The Labour party has accused us of receiving money from dubious sources and has said that it should be returned. However, it admitted that it received money from Robert Maxwell—because that was done openly, it believes that it has no responsibility to return it.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Milligan: I shall not give way as time is short.
The fact that the money was taken from pensioners did not seem to weigh with the Labour party at all. The motion is hypocritical and I suggest that the Labour party should take the beam out of its eye before it seeks to take the mote out of ours.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: In the spirit of openness and disclosure in which the Labour party firmly believes, may I first say that, although I am not sponsored by a trade union, at the last election my constituency party received a small number of donations from trade unions towards the election campaign.
In the past few weeks and days, all the papers and commentators have spoken of the need for openness and sunlight, which is the best disinfectant, on the murky subject of funding, particularly of the Conservative party. The spectacle of Tory Members of Parliament, party officials, ex-treasurers and others falling over each other to give us more information in recent days is illuminating.
Brendan Bruce, former director of communications for the Conservative party, told journalists that when he wrote in his recent book, "Images of Power" that he had taken Asil Nadir out to lunch
in an attempt to extract money from him for Tory party funds
he had wrongly recalled the occasion and money had not been discussed. It is amazing how opinions can change so rapidly.
In addition, as has been said, the Attorney-General and others refused to reveal the identity of the so-called furtive four. I do not know what Asil Nadir's contributions obtained for him or paid for, but a remarkable number of representations has certainly been made. This contradicts the efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on open government and the Tory party's claims to be in favour of it. Indeed, one of the Prime Minister's earliest statements on taking office was on that very subject. Yet we are given no details about who made those representations. What sort of openness is that?
The position of Conservative central office when the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, decided to inquire into funding is also interesting. First, a spokesman for Conservative central office said that it was a bit early to say whether the party would co-operate with the Committee's inquiry. Then one Tim Collins, who I gather is the assistant to the party chairman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said that it was an impertinence that the Committee should look into the private funds of the party.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield would not allow me to intervene in his speech today. He seemed rather reluctant to take interventions. But I should be interested to know whether he dissociated himself from the impertinent remarks of his assistant.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady had plenty of opportunity last Wednesday to question my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield in the Select Committee. Why did she put none of those questions to him then and why is she now complaining?

Mrs. Roche: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks. He will recall that I had a huge number of questions to put to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, none of

which he answered satisfactorily. That was an additional little question that I wanted to put to him today, but he seemed curiously reluctant to take interventions.
Major General Sir Brian Wyldebore-Smith told the Financial Times that he frequently was not aware who donors were and from where the cheques came. He also said that he never refused a cheque. That is interesting since the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield told us proudly of the tremendous new rules, and that money was not accepted from foreign Governments. Sir Brian Wyldebore-Smith was the chairman of the Conservative Board of Finance for 22 years, yet he said that he had never known the Conservative party to refuse a cheque.
Then we had Lord McAlpine telling the world from Venice that the Conservative party was wrong to accept Asil Nadir's donation. The Conservative party tried to present Asil Nadir as a respectable business man, but consider from where his money came. Asil Nadir was allegedly the largest single source of income for Rauf Denktash, the so-called leader of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus, an illegal regime, not recognised by any country other than Turkey. It is not surprising that a fugitive from justice is there in that illegal regime. Mr. Nadir obtained his wealth from the illegal expropriation of property owned by Greek Cypriots. That is the sort of man from whom the Tory party was prepared to take money.

Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roche: No, time is short.
The Select Committee was also told by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the party does not accept donations from foreign Governments. However, he refused to confirm or deny that the party had accepted donations from wealthy foreign individuals such as Mr. Li Ka-Shing and the late Sir Y. K. Pao. Why? What is the definition of a foreign Government? Mr. Li Ka-Shing is a member of the assembly of the Chinese republic. He is a close associate of the Chinese Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That has been denied."] It has not been denied. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I wish to hear the hon. Lady and I do not wish to have my hearing interrupted by a lot of stupid sounds.

Mrs. Roche: It has not been denied. That person had close connections with a foreign Government and the allegation has not been denied. In the Select Committee I put all the names to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and, as I pointed out at the beginning, he said:
We do not reveal details of people either in this country or overseas who make contributions.
What nonsense.

Mr. Graham: Ordinary men and women want to know how the Government have taken £15 million from foreigners. Surely contributions of this kind should be shown in the party's audited accounts. In my constituency, a builder donated a house and the Tory party expected to make £68,000 from raffle tickets costing £500 each. Is there any record of that?

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We just do not have any information about overseas donations to the Conservative party, which refuses to publish proper accounts. In the United States it would be an offence for one of us to make a contribution to the


Republican party or the Democratic party at federal level—and rightly so, as we are not American citizens. No such rules of propriety govern the Conservative party, which takes money from wherever it can.
In this regard, the Saudis have been very much in the news today. I am thinking not just of the Government or the royal family but of private individuals.

Mr. Soley: With regard to the Saudis, the Government have been very defensive. I have received a letter from someone whom I know and in whom I have some confidence. The letter says:
Prior to election time a meeting took place in the residence of Prince Sultan Ibn Abdul Aziz in the Boltons, SW 10 between Prince Bandar, son of the aforementioned, and the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to USA, with Michael Heseltine and two other people unknown to me. The subject of the meeting was to aid the Conservative party financially in their efforts against the Labour party. As far as I have been informed by members of the embassy, this task has been delegated to Mr. Hattab Alonzi, Press Attache, via his supervisor, General Ali Al-Shaaier, Minister 'of Communications and Media.
This source is different from The Guardian article. If similar information had gone to the Conservatives, that party would have looked up the Walworth road accounts. These rumours can be scotched only by the Government's publication of accounts.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised a very important issue. If the Conservative party has nothing to hide, why does not it disclose the names of foreign donors?

Mr. Michael Bates: Can the hon. Lady tell us why the Labour party's annual accounts do not list individual donations from trade unions or from individuals?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The Labour party publishes audited accounts, which are there for everyone to see. Tomorrow the Select
Committee on Home Affairs will be able to put questions to the party's general secretary. The difference is that we have the "disinfectant of sunlight".

Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roche: No. I have given way three times and, as time is limited, I do not intend to do so again.
The allegations about funding from the Saudis will be raised time and time again until the Conservative party makes proper disclosures or admits that it is wrong to accept donations from foreign nationals. For example, there have been allegations about commission on arms sales. I do not know whether the assertions about where that commission has ended up are correct. It is alleged that it has gone into the coffers of the Tory party. I hope very much that the allegations are wrong, as such behaviour brings British political parties into disrepute. But it is very difficult to obtain answers. I have tried to table questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the practice is that Defence Ministers do not answer questions about arms sales. I have therefore tabled questions to the President of the Board of Trade. I have asked about total exports to Saudi Arabia and about commission on them. Most involve weapons. I have been told that information on the proportion of exports involving commission is not available; I wonder why.
We come back to the question of honours. We are told that it is a mere coincidence that those who contribute to the Conservative party end up with honours: they are just very successful business men. A good deal of academic research has been done and statisticians have concluded that the chance of its being a coincidence that 50 per cent. of honours go to Tory party donors is just under one in 1 million. That is an interesting statistic and I should like to hear a response to it.
In 1982, Sir William Cayzer, chairman of the fourth largest donor company, British and Commonwealth, received a life peerage. In 1990 the company went into liquidation, costing the City a great deal of money. More than three years ago, in June 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry appointed inspectors to investigate it. I asked the President of the Board of Trade a parliamentary question, which was answered today: I was told that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs had not yet received the inspector's report and that, when he received it, he would consider publication. In view of the donations to the Conservative party totalling more than £800,000, I urge him to publish as soon as possible. The same considerations apply to ballots. Shareholders' views are rarely sought and shareholders are rarely balloted. How different that is from the position of the trade unions.
Let us see what ordinary, grass-root workers in the Conservative party have had to say. Let us consider what has been said by members of the Charter Movement—long-standing Conservatives—about the culture of secrecy that surrounds the party. Even members elected to its board of finance have been unable to get to the truth of Conservative party funding—and this is the party that constitutes our Government.
Of course, there are honourable exceptions. Perhaps the leading example is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke so well tonight. Over the weekend, he said:
as long as things are done clandestinely and anonymously there is always a suspicion that they are done for motives that are not appropriate.
We have heard no arguments tonight that come close to refuting that sensible argument.
An ICM poll earlier this month showed that 71 per cent. of voters want parties to be legally obliged to disclose details of large donors. It is time that the Conservative party listened to the views of the British public and acted. Let us get some sunlight into its affairs.

Mr. Robin Cook: Let me begin by making a statement with which I hope I can carry the whole House. I welcome the Leader of House to the debate, but regret the necessity that has given rise to his presence.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I do not believe you.

Mr. Cook: It seems that I cannot carry the whole House with me after all; I cannot carry the hon. Member—if that is the right term—for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
Despite what he says, however, I ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of both Front Benches, to convey the concern of the whole House to the President of the Board of Trade, along with our best wishes for his speedy recovery and return to good health. In view of the evident distress of the right hon. Gentleman's wife and family, I


also invite the Leader of the House to join me in appealing to the press to respect the family's privacy and to give them some peace at this difficult time.
Had the President of the Board of Trade been able to join us, he would have listened to such a keenly fought debate with his customary relish, although the speeches that caused him pleasure might not have been the speeches that pleased me.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) all had plenty of material with which to develop the powerful case for disclosure; indeed, so strong are the grounds for disclosure that all my hon. Friends were able to deploy their case without engaging in repetition.
I share the puzzlement felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) about how the Conservative party can have strict rules about the donations that they can receive, when we learn from the party's chief fund raiser that no cheque has ever been refused. It is a curiously drafted rule that never leaves anyone offside.
As the debate has revealed, it is not just the Labour party that is concerned over the secrecy of donations to the governing party. The speeches from the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have clearly conveyed the fact that every party in the House, except the Conservative party, accepts the case for more disclosure.
Even within the Conservative party, there are some who accept the case for disclosure. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a passionate speech on the impossibility of defending secrecy. That speech gained strength from the meretricious arguments of those Conservative Members who attempted to defend that secrecy.
There were absences from the list of speakers who could not plead ill health. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I had hoped to hear from the four more Tory Members who put in a good word to the Attorney-General for Asil Nadir but have yet to come forward. Why are they so furtive?
The three Members who have disclosed themselves as having made representations on behalf of Asil Nadir are still in the Government. We have the statement from the Prime Minister that it was not a hanging offence. We have been told that the Secretary of State for National Heritage was only doing his duty as a constituency Member of Parliament.
We know from the revelations of the past few days that Asil Nadir has several houses. There may have been several more Members doing their duty as constituency Members of Parliament. There must be a simple explanation, and we just want to hear it. Even at this late stage in the debate, I shall make an offer. I am willing to give way four times to any Tory Member who is willing to say that he or she made representations on behalf of that fugitive from British justice. I look forward to the takers with interest.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Cook: How can I resist if the hon. Gentleman may be willing to declare that he made representations or knows who did so?

Mr. Riddick: I did not make any representations about Mr. Asil Nadir. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) disclosed recently that, as far back as 1984, employees of the Mirror Group expressed concern about the behaviour of Mr. Robert Maxwell. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Labour party has not repaid any of the money to the Maxwell pensioners when it had evidence of what was going on?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Cook: Hon. Members cannot yell, "Answer," if they do not allow me to speak. The answer is perfectly simple. The resolution of the executive committee was that we would repay the money if it came from the Mirror Group pensioners. It was established that it did not come from Mirror Group pensioners, so it has not been paid to Mirror Group pensioners.
To put matters right, there has been one donation from Robert Maxwell to the Labour party. That donation was declared on the day it was made. There have been no other payments from Robert Maxwell to the Labour party or to the Leader of the Opposition's office. That sole donation is out in the open. This debate is to invite the Government to be just as open in the donations that they have received.
I am confident that the Secretary of State for Employment is not among those who have made representations on behalf of Asil Nadir. Any hon. Member—

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has already disappointed us once. I will not give way again.
Any hon. Member who believes that the revelations of the last two weeks have demonstrated what he called the integrity of our democratic constitution is a person of such invincible innocence that he has clearly never been tainted by contact with Asil Nadir.
The Secretary of State suggested that the affiliation fees that we receive from trade unions are the same as the donations that the Conservative party receives. It is late in the debate, but I think that I can speak on behalf of all my hon. Friends when I say that we will withdraw our motion if he is willing to put the acceptance of donations by the Conservative party on the same basis as that on which we accept union affiliations.
The affiliations that we receive from trade unions are open; they are declared by us and by the trade unions. No trade union affiliates to us in secret. No trade union pays a clandestine £1 million to us, as Hong Kong property developers do to hon. Gentlemen opposite. No foreign trade union affiliates to the Labour party. Trade unions affiliate only if there is a ballot of all members on setting up a political fund. How many companies that pay the hon. Gentlemen carry out a postal ballot of all their shareholders?

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) refused to answer when she opened the debate? Why does the Labour party not publish a list of private donors?

Mr. Cook: The answer is very clear. We have said that we will agree to name all donors above an agreed amount if the other parties will do so. Since the hon. Member is ready to identify contributions from high-value donors, which in aggregate come to less than half the sums the Conservative party received from Asil Nadir alone, I have to say that all those included in that list of high-value donors are well below any sum of which that lot opposite will agree to list the donors.
I have already said that, even when the majority in those trade unions vote to set up a political fund, the minority have a right to opt out. What shareholder ever has the right to opt out of a donation to the Conservative party from a company?
We were told that donations to the Conservative party were freely given and freely received. No consumer is getting a rebate from Thames Water for its donation of £50,000 to the Conservative party. That was not freely given; those consumers cannot opt out of buying their water from Thames Water They cannot opt out of that forced contribution to the Conservative party.
I will give way to any hon. Member who is willing to answer this challenge. If they are so worried about trade union funding, why do they not bring their own sources of income up to the same standard? Why do they not give an open declaration of all big paymasters? Why do they not give every shareholder a vote on those donations? Why do they not give those shareholders the right to opt out if they do not agree? Why do they not have a certification officer to make sure that those companies obey the law and declare their donations?
If they do that, they will raise their sources of income to the same level as the trade union affiliations. If they do not, they should stop criticising a source of payment that is more open, more democratic and less forced than anything that they practise on the income side.
The Secretary of State issued another challenge. He said that this debate was all about state funding: that we want to get our hands on taxpayers' money. I will not take any lectures from hon. Members on this score. This Government would need a fork-lift truck to carry along Whitehall the money that they have poured into bogus advertising campaigns.
What did they do when they found that the public opposed school tests? They helped themselves to a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayers' money to convince the public that they were wrong and the Government were right.
The Secretary of State for Employment said that, if we want a party, we should pay for it. I say to them that, if they want an advertising campaign for their policy, they should pay for it.

Mr. David Sumberg: rose—

Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way; I want to deal with the Secretary of State.
He ended his speech by accusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) of making a speech of sleaze and smears. That would have been a more convincing accusation had it not been carefully typed in advance.
Let us look at what Lord McAlpine said—Lord McAlpine who has found the funds to pay for four election victories for the Conservatives and is so doubtful of the result that he is now in permanent exile.
Last night, I saw Lord McAlpine being interviewed on television about whether he and the President of the Board of Trade had talked about Asil Nadir. His reply was:
Why come to Venice to talk about a sleazy fellow like that?
It was not we who were saying that one of the biggest donors to the Tory party in modern times was a sleazy fellow. It was the man who took the money who was now calling him a sleazy fellow.
It was not always thus. This sleazy fellow was six times in Downing street and was once at Chequers for lunch. He received a letter from Lady Thatcher which said:
I cannot thank you enough. It was a marvellous encouragement to know that you were so committed to the cause in which we believe.
Sadly, what was a marvellous encouragement has now turned into a marvellous embarrassment, proving the truth of the saying among my people that he who lies down with dogs will surely rise with fleas.
We were told in the debate that it was all right for the Tories to have taken the stolen money because they did not know at the time that it was stolen. I shall tell them what they did know. They knew that Asil Nadir had not declared his donation. The company accounts are on the public record, and what they say is unmistakable.
The company accounts of Polly Peck for 1987–88, the year to which the letter from Lady Thatcher refers, say:
No political donations were made.
We have had repeated statements that it is not for the Conservative party to obey the law, but for the donors to the Conservative party to obey the law. Yes, but it is not just for the donors to observe the law; it is for Government to enforce observance of the law.
For over a year, it has been public knowledge that Asil Nadir made donations to the Tory party. For over a year, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have known that the Companies Acts were being broken by the failure to declare those donations. For over a year, no charges have been brought. When Companies house was asked why no charges had been brought, it said:
We don't have a proactive role.
Here is the party of law and order. Why is the party of law and order not proactive on the issue of an offence against the law? Why has not one charge been brought under this head? Is it simply that a Conservative Government would be too embarrassed if the directors were convicted of making a donation without legally declaring it, because it would strengthen the pressure on the Conservative party to give it back?
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a speech today in which he repeated his assurance that it was not the policy of the Conservative party to take money that was obtained illegally, and that he would give it back if it was proven to be stolen. Having worked us up, he rather left us disappointed by saying that he could not give a snap reaction to Touche Ross. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was 601 days since he had had the previous letter from Touche Ross, one might have thought that he would be better prepared for the next one.
This is not a private dispute between the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and Touche Ross; it is a public scandal. The nation will judge the party by its response. It will judge it on information already in the public domain, such as the information that the payments to the Tory party came from the same offshore account in Jersey in respect of which Asil Nadir has been charged


with making illegal payments, and that three of the payments to the Conservative party were made within days—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's last remark, in which he made the accusation if illegal payments, is somewhat out of order at this stage.

Mr. Cook: I was under the impression, Madam Speaker, that I had said that Asil Nadir had been charged with making illegal payments. The charge sheet is specific, and spells out the days on which the alleged illegal payments were made. Three of the payments to the Tory party were made within days of payments to that same account which relate to the charges in the trial.
What more proof does the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield want? We know that the donor has been charged in respect of that stolen money. By any decent standard, that should be enough. The Conservative party should stop its prevarication and give the money back now.
The right hon. Gentleman also reminded us today that it was an offence to buy honours. He did not repeat to the Select Committee his statement that there was no correlation between donations to the Tory party and honours for company directors. I am glad that he did not repeat that assertion today. When I first read it, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been around too long, that he was in danger of believing too many impossible things, and that it might he in his interest to consider another resignation, this time to spend more time with Group 4.
The companies that make donations to the Tory party make up 5 per cent. of the companies registered in Britain, and 50 per cent. of the companies with directors who have received honours. They make up one third of the top 50 companies in Britain, and two thirds of the two companies that received honours.

Mr. Bates: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman can explain that correlation, I shall happily give way.

Mr. Bates: By casting doubt on the manner in which awards are given, is the hon. Gentleman doubting the credibility and integrity of the Labour Privy Councillor who was a member of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee?

Mr. Cook: No, of course I am not. The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the Committee vets the names in front of it; it does not choose the names, which come through the members of the Treasury Bench. It is members of the Treasury Bench who decide that the honours should be targeted on some industrialists. It is not open to the Committee to search for other industrialists who may deserve the honour more.
Let us be clear and fair to the right hon. Gentleman. The charge that he must answer is not that he ever arranged with the noble Lords to meet around the back of a motorway service station to pick up his bung and hand over the gong. The charge is much more urbane. Word gets around that the chances of a peerage or knighthood are generously multiplied by generous donations to the Conservative party.

Mr. David Hunt: I have done some research. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of those receiving important honours and contributing to the Conservative party since 1979 is the same proportion as received honours under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Cook: As not a single company made a donation to the previous Labour Government, that comment beggars belief. It was the practice of our previous Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, to consult Walworth road to ensure that no industrialist that he nominated had ever made a donation to the Labour party. There is no substance whatsoever in the right hon. Gentleman's claim.
If one considers the 12 companies that have made the largest donations to the Tory party over the past 10 years, one finds that 10 have now received honours for their directors. There is a correlation. As a matter of fact, it is an 83 per cent. correlation.
Can the Leader of the House explain that dramatic correlation? Can he explain the credibility gap between the £19 million that the Tory party declared in donations and the £3·7 million declared by British companies last year? Where did the millions in between come from? When that question was asked during the opening speech, a voice from the Government Benches cried out, "Coffee mornings." I would love to see the audited accounts of those coffee mornings; even Turkish coffee mornings cannot raise the difference between £3·7 million and £19 million.
As long as the Conservatives do not publish their accounts, the suspicion must remain that the difference comes from large donations from private individuals—large donations which, in some respects, are even worse than company donations, because they are not published. The danger of secret donations is that they leave public government under private obligation.
We are not talking about people who put a fiver in an envelope and send it off to central office. People misguided enough to do that are entitled to privacy, to shield them from the ridicule of their neighbours. They will never be invited to dinner at Chequers; directors of communications of the Tory party will not write in their memoirs about lunches at Granby's trying to convince them that their fiver has been well spent on a marketing effort.
We are not talking about donations of £5 or £10; we are talking about the £2 million that John Latsis is alleged to have given. That donation has never been denied during the debate. If the Leader of the House wishes to deny now that such a donation was made, I shall happily give way to him to enable him to do so.
I am rather surprised that John Latsis should be so anxious to help the democratic process at work, because the previous Government that he supported with such large sums was the rule of the Greek colonels, who were given more to arresting their opponents than to arguing with them. What is the Conservative party doing dipping into the same source as Karamanlis? What is John Latsis doing investing his money in the Conservative party? What are foreigners doing bankrolling the election expenses of a party when they have no vote in the election for which they are contributing the money?
In case it should be alleged that what we say is more innuendos and smears from the Labour party, the Leader of the House should bear in mind what Lord McAlpine


said last week when he was asked where he got his money. He answered that it came from Greek shipping magnates, Hong Kong millionaires and Americans, adding:
There were always a few Americans giving maybe $25,000, but it wasn't millions.
Taken together, those sums certainly amounted to millions.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I shall finish in a moment.
Lord McAlpine went on to say that there were always
tons of offshore accounts".
Britain has no right to interfere in the elections of foreign countries, and foreigners have no right to interfere in the elections of this country. That is not just a matter for the Conservatives—

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to call into question the integrity of so many people, especially senior captains of British industry? [Interruption] He calls people's integrity into question, and he should put up or shut up.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for the comments that they make. It is up to them.

Mr. Cook: It was not I who produced the Greek shipping magnates, the Hong Kong millionaires and the Americans. It was Lord McAlpine, the party treasurer. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and his hon. Friends were only too happy to take the money, so long as it remained secret.
This is not just a matter for the Conservatives; it is an issue for the nation. The Government are the nation's Government—God help it. The nation is entitled to know who the Government's paymasters are. Whatever the Government have to hide, the damage to their credibility cannot be worse than the frank consternation that they have shown since they were asked to open the books.
There is another reason why I believe that the Conservatives have been damaged by the events of the past week. It is the contrast between what the Conservative Government preach and what the Conservative party does. The Government preach open government, but the Conservative party will not even open its books. The Government preach sound money, but the party cannot even come up with audited accounts. The Government preach law and order, but the Conservative party will not give back the cash that it took from a fugitive from British justice.
No contrast is more offensive than the sight of the Government, even as they sharpen their knife to pare down the benefits of invalids and disabled people, being exposed as touching the wealthiest people in the world to pay their own party bills. The party of the foreign millionaire cannot be expected to understand the pressures on pensioners at home.
The best cure for a nasty smell is fresh air from open disclosure. Tonight we shall vote for all parties to open their books and to declare who bankrolls them. Only a party with something to hide will vote to keep the lid on its accounts.
I warn the Conservative party that the public will not trust a Government who will not trust them with the knowledge of who their paymasters are. The Government

may vote down our motion tonight, but if they win the vote in the Lobby, they will lose the confidence of the nation.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): May I begin by responding to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in the terms with which he, quite properly, very courteously started his speech when he expressed sympathy for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and for his family and asked that they should be left alone during the President's current difficulties. I know that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said and that that sentiment will be shared by all Conservative Members.
As a result of what has happened to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I find myself somewhat unexpectedly taking part in this debate which has undoubtedly been a debate of—how shall I put it?—considerable interest.
The most engaging contribution was perhaps that made from the Liberal Benches by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) if only because the hon. Gentleman engagingly acknowledged that the last people who would universally be accepted to have sold honours in this country were the last Liberal Government. Indeed, I have a copy of the price list—[Interruption.] This may be of some historical interest. According to the price list, a knighthood cost £12,000. However, that is at 1920s prices—the mind boggles. A baronetcy—we do not have those these days—cost £35,000; and a peerage cost from £50,000 to £100,000.
That was of interest, but the most interesting thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, engaging as it was, was his ineffable optimism—although that was perhaps complimentary to me—in suggesting that I might be able to talk him out of a position, into which he had clearly already arrived, where he said he was going to vote for a motion with 90 per cent. of which he disagreed. That task is clearly beyond me if he got himself into that position at the start.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said when he opened the debate for the Government, we, and I particularly as Leader of the House, have spent several weeks during which time the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Leader of the House, demanded from me week by week Supply days to discuss worthy and weighty subjects such as Bosnia, the economy and defence.
However, we are now debating this subject when only three days ago, when he was about to travel to Copenhagen, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said on the "Today" programme that the economy was the
number one item on the agenda of the socialist leaders.
So what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? As soon as he had flown back from Copenhagen, he came in to Prime Minister's Question Time and focused on these disreputable allegations. He followed that up with today's debate in which one piece of smear and innuendo followed another.
The reason for all that is, from the Labour party's point of view, that there is not enough bad news about. Unemployment is falling. Retail sales have been rising. The housing market and the car industry are growing. The


European Community is saying that ours will be the fastest growing economy in Europe, both this year and next year. No wonder the Opposition do not want to debate the economy and engage instead in this diversionary tactic.
That is the first reason for this debate. The second reason, which has become increasingly clear as the debate has progressed, is that the Labour party really wants the taxpayer to bail out the crumbling finances of the Labour party. I suspect that the electorate would be heartily suspicious of having to dig into their pockets to fund the campaigning and political activities of political parties. In the case of the Labour party, they would, frankly, be bound to wonder whether it was not a case of pouring good money after bad in financing one election defeat after another. It is typical of the Labour party that when it cannot get people to dig into their own pocket voluntarily to fund it, it wants to introduce a law to make them do so.
I make no apology for repeating something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said. We take the view that the voluntary principle is a strength of our political system. It contributes to participation in politics and to close contact between parties and the electorate. As my right hon. Friend said, none of us can see how, in a country in which voting is not compulsory, it would be right to force voters to pay for political parties. Why should life-long Labour supporters pay for the refurbishment of central office or staunch Conservatives have their taxes diverted to bale out the Labour party?
I make no bones about the fact that we remain wedded to the principle that where individuals make donations for political or, for that matter, charitable purposes, they are entitled to the right of privacy, if that is what they wish.
To reiterate what my right hon. Friend said, the Conservative party does not accept money with strings attached; it does not accept donations which it has reason to believe contain illegally obtained moneys; it does not accept donations from foreign Governments; and it does not accept donations from unknown sources.
As my right hon. Friend also said—and this brings me to another point of interest—if the money from Polly Peck proves to have been stolen, it will be paid back. What I want to know is whether we will get the same guarantee about the Maxwell money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Answer, for the moment, was there none.

Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman will recall—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell the truth, Robin."] I have always told the House the truth. I told the House the truth in my speech. The money was checked to discover whether it had come from the pension fund; it did not come from the Maxwell pension fund, from which money was stolen by Maxwell. [Interruption.] lf, at any stage, that money, which was received in 1986, is proved to have been stolen, the Labour party will, of course, consider repaying it.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will have realised from some of the sedentary comments around me, some of us remember what the hon. Gentleman said during the general election. Frankly, I do not think that his comments tonight were any better.
I have been looking at a story which appeared in one of the newspapers in December 1991.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Which one?

Mr. Newton: The Daily Mail. [Interruption.] It is of some interest, because it stated:
Senior Labour MPs were warned seven years ago about possible threats to the Mirror pension fund when Robert Maxwell bought the newspaper group, it was revealed yesterday.
Shadow Cabinet member"—
he was then—
Bryan Gould admitted that they took no action despite their suspicions. He said that, not being in Government, there was nothing they could do.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Daily Mail, in a recent leader, called upon all political parties, including the Conservative party, to declare all donations of more than £10,000?

Mr. Newton: That conflicts slightly with some of the derision from Labour Members when I mentioned the Daily Mail. I disagree with the proposal in the Daily Mail. I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has not been able to come back for the end of the debate. Leaving aside what the hon. Member for Livingston is saying, I want to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East whether the money will be repaid if it is shown that it was illegally obtained. Against the background of what is known about Maxwell, I do not know what inquiries entitle him to say that the money was legally obtained.
On the "Today" programme on Saturday, when John Humphrys asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the straight and direct question:
Well, you could give the Robert Maxwell money back to the pension fund, couldn't you?",
he got a reply that fell conspicuously short of even offering to consider the point.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that £80 million went missing from a Maxwell company and a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, who took £750,000 of that amount, is sitting in the House of Lords representing the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: I heard that point made earlier, but I have yet to hear it convincingly disposed of by the Labour Front Bench.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was not one of her better ones. Indeed, I thought that she might have recruited one of the script writers from "Eldorado". She started with a great list of people who had apparently been given honours on a dubious basis by the Conservative party. One could almost see the right hon. Lady collapse when, in the following speech, it emerged that the chairman of United Biscuits got his first honour in a Labour list. I then made the point that the person who is now Lord Hanson received his knighthood in the lavender list, no less.
We then heard about all of the foreign donations with much talk of Saudi Arabia. That was reinforced even after repeated denials by those who are said to have been involved by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). That collapsed in the face of a statement issued today by the person who was said to have been involved, Prince Bandar, the ambassador of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States. The statement specifically says that all the allegations in The Guardian today are,
untrue and wholly without foundation. No such meeting took place and neither Prince Bandar bin Sultan nor anyone connected with the Saudi Arabian government has made


donations to the Conservative party, whether directly or indirectly, or been asked for such donations. Also, HRH Prince Bandar was not in England during the month of March.
In the catalogue of allegations from Labour Members, we came to Mr. Li Ka-Shing. There has been a good deal of dispute on points of order and so on about the precise position of Business Age in all of this. I shall put on record the letter, of which I have a copy, signed by the editor of that magazine to the solicitors, Denton Hall Burgin and Warrens, dated 21 June 1993 and countersigned as agreed by those solicitors. I quote:
In accordance with our agreement we state below the terms in which this matter is settled.
The terms are as follows:
1. We will publish in Business Age No. 34 July 1993 an apology extending to the bulk of the right hand side of page 9. This apology will appear in the top column of the right hand page, at page 9 in the section entitled 'Follow Through from previous issues.' in the following terms:
Li Ka-Shing
An apology
In Business Age No. 32 May 1993 we published an article entitled 'Tory money' in the course of which it could be inferred that Li Ka-Shing improperly sought financial favours for himself or for companies with which he was connected.
We are satisfied that any such suggestion is entirely baseless. Li Ka-Shing has informed us that he neither sought nor received any favours. We accept that the article was based on information that we now know to be without any foundation whatsoever.
It goes on to list some specific points. It concludes:
Business Age and its Editor undertake not, at any time in the future, to publish the same or similar statements about Li Ka-Shing, as made in the article referred to above. Provided we comply with the above Mr. Li Ka-Shing will withdraw the threat of legal action against us and indeed not take any further legal action with regard to the article published in Business Age No. 32 May 1993.
I will quote the immortal last sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Immoral."] I said immortal. It says:
It is also hoped that normal harmonious relations; with Mr. Li Ka-Shing will resume after the apology is published.

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.

Mr. Cook: The Leader of the House will now acknowledge that none of that retraction does anything to withdraw the essential allegation by which the magazine stands that Li Ka-Shing was a major donor to Tory party funds. Will he answer yes or no? Did he receive a large donation from Li Ka-Shing? Yes or no in the four minutes that remain.

Mr. Newton: I will start answering in those terms—

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Newton: No. No. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order before we proceed any further.

Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no."] Nothing could have more conclusively demonstrated the Labour party's purpose in the debate than the way in which every time that allegations are shot down the Labour party seeks to repeat the very allegations that have been shot down.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: No. I will not give way at this stage. That is the story of what this has been about. It has been about the desire to conduct, in the way that it has been conducted, a plain, straightforward campaign of smear and innuendo whatever information has come to hand. At the end of it all, what is it all about? It is about the fact that the one party in Britain with which one can buy votes and influence is the Labour party.
I remind the occupants of the Labour Front Bench, even though they know it already, of what the then Labour party treasuer said only eight months ago:
I have a duty to say to those people who want to loosen the union link: look at our income figures"—
[Interruption]—and then Mr. Tom Sawyer said: "No say, no pay." That is the message.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:: Ayes 250, Noes 291.

Division No. 303]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davidson, Ian


Alton, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Hilary
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H.


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blunkett, David
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fraser, John


Burden, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Mike


Coffey, Ann
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hoey, Kate


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dafis, Cynog
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)






Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Prescott, John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Rendel, David


Keen, Alan
Richardson, Jo


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rogers, Allan


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


Mahon, Alice
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mandelson, Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michael, Alun
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Turner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Alan Meale.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)





Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fry, Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth. Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Congdon, David
Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick






McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Maitland, Lady Olga
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marland, Paul
Spencer Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thomason, Roy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlinglon)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter.


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers Tor the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 249.

Division No. 304
[10.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker. Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael





Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Major, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)






Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Sir Keith


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Milligan. Stephen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sproat, Iain


Moate, Sir Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Streeter, Gary


Nicholls. Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trend, Michael


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Willetts. David


Sackville, Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young. Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boyes, Roland


Ainger, Nick
Bradley. Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Hilary
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Byers, Stephen


Austin-Walker, John
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Blunkett, David
Clelland, David


Boateng, Paul
Clwyd, Mrs Ann





Coffey, Ann
Jowell, Tessa


Cohen, Harry
Keen, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corbett, Robin
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mandelson, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Enright, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Etherington, Bill
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliot


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mudie, George


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Hara, Edward


Grocott, Bruce
Olner, William


Gunnell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hain, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hall, Mike
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett. Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prescott, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Purchase, Ken


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Richardson, Jo


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted






Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dennis


Salmond, Alex
Tyler, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wallace, James


Short, Clare
Walley, Joan


Simpson, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike


Smith, C. (lsl'ton S & F'sbury)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stevenson, George
Worthington, Tony


Stott, Roger
Wray, Jimmy


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Alan Meale and


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Tipping, Paddy

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the principle of voluntary funding underpins the strength of democratic parties in this country; records its concern at the purchase by trade unions of votes in the election of the Labour Party leadership, the selection of candidates and of votes on policy at Labour's Party Conference sufficient to secure binding commitments; and calls upon the Labour Party to end the control over its policy, organisation and leadership wielded by a small number of trade union leaders.

PETITIONS

Fuel (VAT)

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to present a petition:
To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the petition of residents in Coventry, Sheweth That the recent announcement of VAT increases on Gas and Electricity bills has filled the people of Coventry with deep concern because of the consequential hardship these increases will have on Old Age Pensioners, One-Parent Families and, in general, poorer members of society. They believe these increases to be to the long-term detriment of the least well off people of Coventry and the nation.
A total of 2,300 people in Coventry have expressed their concern by signing the petition because they feel that the increases are neither economically nor socially justified.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to see that these Increases will not proceed because of the social and economic hardship for many Pensioners, One-Parent Families and Communities.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Pensions and Benefits (Payment)

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to present a petition:
To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of sub-post office users in Halifax, West Yorkshire sheweth that they are against the removal by the Government of their right to receive pension and benefit payments at local post offices. Wherefore, we request that your Honourable House request the Government to give people the right to choose to receive pension and benefit payments at their local post office; recognising the benefits of this to individual and community.
Nearly 10,000 people in Halifax have signed the petition.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Sudan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: This debate gives us the opportunity to raise the issue of Sudan and the Government's policy towards it. It has been sadly neglected. A tragedy has been occurring there on a scale comparable to that in Bosnia and Somalia, but relatively little attention has been paid to it, although the amount of human suffering has been intense. It has been called the silent death of Sudan.
As the Minister will know, I recently visited the part of Sudan under the control of the Khartoum Government. I went there in the company of the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), who regrets that he cannot be here tonight. I want to raise questions arising from that visit. Obviously, if the Minister cannot deal with all the issues during the debate, I will be pleased to receive a letter from him afterwards.
I express my appreciation to the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office for the assistance given to us. In particular, I thank our ambassador in Khartoum, Mr. Peter Streams, for the immense help that he and his staff gave, for the very fine work that he does in representing Britain there and for the concern that he shows for the suffering of the Sudanese people.
Perhaps understandably, we have been obsessed by Bosnia and, to a lesser extent, Somalia. Totally inadequate attention has been given to the tragic events in Sudan, a country of great size, variety and charm, with which, of course, Britain has the closest associations.
The term ethnic cleansing has been used and deplored extensively with regard to Bosnia, but it is also applicable to Sudan. We have had the accusation that fundamentalist Islam is seeking to impose its doctrinaire vision not just on the Christian south, but on those Muslims who do not share its purist view.
We also have the cries for help from the Nuba mountains, where the Nuba people claim that their ethnicity, their whole way of life, is being eliminated.
Unfortunately, the outside world is not allowed to see how great the physical, human and social destruction has been. There is no doubt that the scale of misery is huge. No one who has seen the starvation that has occurred in the south can be in any doubt that this is a tragedy of immense proportions. It is a tragedy that has many dimensions.
Literally millions of people have been displaced as a consequence of the civil war that has been going on for 10 years. Apart from the refugees to other lands from Sudan, there are over 1 million people in huge camps around Khartoum. They have been forced to live miles from anywhere, in the desert, in hot, windy conditions, where food, water and medical facilities are completely inadequate. In the past, their primitive homes around Khartoum have been demolished and they have been forcibly moved in their tens of thousands further out in the desert. It is safe to say that in Sudan as a whole there are 2 million to 3 million internally displaced people.
We now face the appalling problems whereby previously self-reliant people are dependent on being fed; they are not able to feed themselves and the international community is forced to feed combatants in a war.
In the Nuba mountains, the international aid organisations have been excluded. Many villages have been destroyed and tens of thousands of women and children have been separated from their menfolk. The Nuba people have been stripped of their lands, which have been sold to Arab business men and mechanised; the soil has been degraded and the Nuba have been used as cheap labour. The environmental consequences of this mechanised farming have been devastating.
There are appalling stories of so-called peace camps, where aid is delivered only in return for religious allegiance. Certainly the Nuba people themselves feel that their whole cultural identity is being frontally attacked.
The Sudanese human rights record has been condemned by the United Nations by 104 votes to eight and the United Nations rapporteur, Dr. Biro, has made it absolutely clear that there are great abuses of human rights in Sudan. Amnesty International has also made it clear that people routinely disappear in that country. In our visit to Juba, we personally established that over 50 people caught in the Juba disturbances of last summer and autumn have disappeared, with no proper trial and no information being given to their relatives about whether they are alive or dead. There is the fully documented instance of ghost houses or secret detention centres being used for the interrogation and torture of detainees without any reference to family or lawyers.
Political parties are banned and since our stay a large number of people associated with the former democratically elected Prime Minister Al Mandi have been detained. The regime are now attacking their fellow Muslims as well as the Christians they have attacked before.
But, of course, much of the concern in this country has come from the Christian churches, because of the difficulties which have been put in the way of worship in Sudan. At the heart of the problem is the determination by the military dictatorship in Khartoum that the country will be run under a system of sharia—the imposition of a religious state. which is inevitably uncomfortable for those not of that faith, or not of that version of the faith.
The witness of Christians, for example, is not allowed in Sharia courts. Sharia extends to all areas of life, including banking and education. Public education systems have been Arabised and Islamised. It is inevitable that that gives second-class citizenship to all Christians or others not of a fundamentalist disposition. How can there be peace within a religious state in a multicultural society? Sharia means that religion determines national identity and is the framework for the political and civil structure. Religion allocates power and resources. There are bound to be problems in a multi-religious, multicultural state such as Sudan, where there is no equality between believers.
Economically, the country is bankrupt. The World bank has withdrawn from a country that does not pay its debts and there is an immense flight of private capital. Behind all the problems has been a civil war which has gone on for 10 years. The country is in dire trouble. There is formally a ceasefire, but the rebels in the south are now in factions and there is still fighting between those factions.
The Sudanese Government have no monopoly on brutality or on abuses of human rights. Appalling atrocities have been committed by the southern forces as well. The factions in the south have been impeding the delivery of food, with all the tragic consequences we have seen on our television screens. What has been especially


repulsive has been the way in which innocent Sudanese people have been starved for political or military purposes by all sides. In addition to the already complex situation, the Arab versus African dimension and the Islam versus Christian dimension, there is now a major inter-tribal conflict in the south of the country.
We now come to what we can and must do on our own, with our EC partners and with the United Nations. I cannot stress enough that, because of our colonial history, Britain is the country above all to which ordinary Sudanese look for help from the outside world. That came across to us with enormous force on our visit there. What can we do? First, we must do all that we can to ensure that Dr. Biro's work to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan is aided as far as possible. We must ensure that ordinary citizens can go about their business without fear and that the Sudanese Government give full access to Dr. Biro and his team. He must start his work soon and he must be fully resourced to do that work. What assurances can the Government give on that?
We have to insist that all parts of the country are open to international observers. The Sudanese Government say that they have nothing to hide. Let the Sudanese Government prove that. There is particular concern about the Nuba mountains. We must know whether there have been massacres and on what scale, what displacement has occurred and what abuse of human rights there has been, as has been extensively reported in this country and elsewhere.
The international non-governmental agencies—the aid organisations—are not allowed to work in those parts of the country. Only Sudanese Islamic relief organisations are allowed to work there. For the protection of those people, we must insist that the international aid organisations can work there. There must be unhindered access for humanitarian work. What pressure are the Government applying to allow that to occur? What has been the finding of an EC troika, which has recently visited the country? What has it found and what does it say should occur?
It is not just that the international aid organisations must be allowed to work in the north of the country. There is a continuing problem of access in the south. It is estimated that only one quarter of the population in the south has access to the Operation Lifeline aid programme. The Sudanese Government are also impeding the international NGOs which do not have access to the thousands of southern people who are displaced throughout the country.
One must be even-handed and say that the factions in the south also impede the delivery of food with the appalling consequences that we have seen. Assistance needs to be increased and the logistics from Khartoum and Nairobi to be improved. The world food programme based, or headed up, from Nairobi has been described as overwhelmed by the scale of the task, partly through lack of resources, partly through incompetence and partly because it stops work at the first sign of difficulty while aid organisations such as Goal of Ireland continue their work.
Richard Dowden in The Independent has been devastatingly critical of the United Nations' performance in Kenya from where southern Sudan has to be serviced. What is the Government's view? What are they going to do to remedy the deficiency? It is not merely a problem of food; there is a major public health disaster featuring epidemic diseases such as kala-azar. What assessment have the Government made of the food and medical needs?
There is also a need for safe havens or demilitarised zones and the withdrawal of the fighting factions, especially from the Waat-Ayod-Kongor areas, or the famine triangle. In effect, that seems to have been agreed between the factions on 28 May following the intervention of the American ambassador. Has a safe haven been established? Have the forces been withdrawn? What pressure is being applied? If there is an agreement for a safe haven or demilitarised zone, it is something on which to build.
We must maintain pressure on the Government of Sudan. It is clear that poverty is increasing and that the ordinary Sudanese are facing ever-greater difficulties. The Nigerians have been hosting peace talks in Abuja, and we must be grateful to them for doing that. There is no sign, however, that progress is being made and it is doubtful whether John Garang, the leader of the SPLA, has credibility as the sole representative of the splintered south. There is a grave suspicion that the Khartoum Government are stalling and that the insistence on Sharia is the main obstacle to progress.
Other talks being held in Nairobi between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA united faction seem more optimistic. In Nairobi it has been reported that the Sudan Government have conceded the right of the southern Sudanese to self-determination through a referendum, although it is complicated by northern politicians who still regard the war as a fight against the Government in Sudan for the whole of Sudan and who are not interested in peace or the southern issue.
What information do the Government have on the progress of the Nairobi talks? The British ambassador in Khartoum recently visited the south. What information and views did he bring back? Surely the time has now come for the United Nations and the international community to put pressure on all parties in the dispute. Should not the British Government take up the plight of the Sudanese people at the Security Council to try to find a satisfactory outcome?
All sides seem to agree that Sudan cannot be a unitary state. Whether it becomes a federation, a confederation or two separate states is for the people of Sudan to decide. We must press for genuine steps to be made towards democracy. It is good that in Nairobi there seems to have been some agreement, or movement, on the need for a referendum. Neither the northern Government nor the factions in the south are elected. There is a complete absence of democratisation in Sudan. Will the Government press for a referendum at least in the southern states, if not in the whole of Sudan?
I have raised this issue for debate because of the concern of many hon. Members and of the many people outside, especially the groups that support the aid organisations in this country. I look foward very much to the Government's reply.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for giving the House the timely opportunity to discuss the Sudan. I am sure that the House will be grateful, as I am, for his first-hand account of the situation there, following his recent visit accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). I am grateful for his


tribute to the work of Her Majesty's ambassador in the Sudan and his staff, who, like those elsewhere in the diplomatic service, fulfil their tasks with dedication and considerable courage.
I found myself in broad agreement with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the situation and of the causes of the disastrous condition in which the Sudan finds itself. The hon. Member paints a grim picture, and it is all too clear from the many sources available to us that it is an accurate one.
The root cause of the humanitarian crisis is the civil war which has wracked the country for so long. There will be no lasting solution to the problems in the south unless there is a peace settlement. It is crucial that all sides in the conflict—the Sudanese Government and the rival factions in the south—seize the opportunity afforded by the peace talks under way in Abuja. There can be no military solution. We whole-heartedly support the efforts of the Nigerian Government, who are chairing these talks. The Governments of Uganda and Kenya also continue to play a helpful and constructive role.
It is right that the regional powers should be addressing the problem. But it is also our duty and that of our European partners to give every support to the process. This we have pledged to the Nigerian Government. We have also continued to insist in discussion with the parties—the regime in Khartoum and the rival factions of the south—that they seize the opportunity which now exists. We have put this point strongly to Sudanese Ministers. The international community will not understand if any of the parties fails to make the maximum effort. The SPLA leader, John Garang, received that message when he called in at the Foreign Office last month. The British ambassador who, as the hon. Gentleman said, visited southern Sudan two weeks ago, made the same point clearly to rival southern factions. As I speak, the Danish Minister for Development Co-operation is, as the hon. Gentleman also said, leading a troika delegation—on which we are represented by the permanent secretary at the Overseas Development Administration—on a visit to southern Sudan and Khartoum to underline the message.
The Troika will also—this will be a primary objective—underline the seriousness with which the Community and its member states view the humanitarian crisis. It will underline the massive popular concern throughout the western world for the plight of the Sudanese people. There will be a strong message to the Sudanese Government and to the southern leaders that they must ensure that relief aid reaches all those in need throughout the country. Too often in the past the Government or the southern factions have obstructed relief. It is their duty to facilitate and to provide all necessary support and protection for the non-governmental organisations that distribute it. I have to say that in recent months it has been the fighting between factions in the south rather than action by the Sudanese forces that has obstructed our distribution.
The hon. Member referred to the UN relief operation in south Sudan. That is known as Operation Lifeline Sudan—OLS—and it covers a large area of over 100,000 sq. miles of scattered settlements and towns. Much of the area is swampy during the wet season, making some areas inaccessible by road or airlift. Since the beginning of this year, OLS has had agreement from all parties to the

conflict to reactivate the relief network to more than 30 locations by air, river, road and rail. That is a complex operation requiring careful assessments to determine the needs and priorities of each area and then to establish the right delivery and distribution systems. The operaton has been disrupted by continuing hostilities, largely by the SPLA factions, which has brought further misery to the civilian population, and destroyed some relief facilities.
The United Nations agencies of the OLS and the international NGOs—non-governmental organisations—have shown courage and tenacity in maintaining relief services, but much remains to be done to relieve the suffering in the most severely affected areas. We await a full report of the visit of the EC troika Development Ministers. But they have already reported that the OLS has done a great deal to alleviate the suffering of more than 600,000 people at risk from shortages of food, medicines and other basic necessities. Those people will need more help to piece together their disrupted lives. Closer co-operation between all those involved and a willingness to give priority to humanitarian aid are essential next steps. The troika is continuing its report on how this can now be achieved. We have provided nearly £23 million since OLS was established in 1989, and we shall now consider ways in which we can continue to help those in need.

Mr. Worthington: I realise that the Minister cannot directly criticise UN operations. However, there have been some very savage criticisms in the press, particularly in The Independent, about the competence of the UN operation in Kenya serving southern Sudan. Will the Minister undertake to look into those criticisms and the references to four co-ordinators for seven or eight planes and to the fact that the UN cuts its activities down when the NGOs are willing to carry on? Those criticisms applied in Somalia where international NGOs were willing to continue, but the UN services backed off from Somalia. Those criticisms must be answered.

Mr. Goodlad: I undertake to examine the criticisms that have been made. However, I do not wish to comment this evening on whether they are valid. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I should like to take a moment here to pay a tribute, which I am sure will be supported by the hon. Gentleman, to the British relief workers in the Sudan. The account we received from the British ambassador on his visit to the south this month vividly describes the devotion and courage of hundreds of volunteers, many of them young—including many girls—working for relief agencies such as Save the Children, Oxfam, Care, Concern, Goal and others. They live in conditions of appalling deprivation and, in many cases, considerable danger. Their efforts are essential to the delivery of relief. They have saved the lives of countless Sudanese. Their selflessness is magnificent and humbling to witness.
Her Majesty's Government have committed about £65 million for humanitarian assistance since November 1990 including our share of EC aid. All of that is channelled through the United Nations or non-governmental organisations. We were the second largest donor of bilateral food aid last year. We attached no political strings to that. The priority is to save life and meet basic needs. In addition, we gave our full support to the appointment by the United Nations Secretary-General last


month of the Italian diplomat, Mr. Traxler, as senior co-ordinator for the Sudan. He could have an important role in co-ordinating international humanitarian assistance. It is important, as we have made very clear to them, that the Sudanese Government stop procrastinating on this appointment. They should welcome it and they should receive Mr. Traxler for discussions in Khartoum as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to human rights. The Sudanese Government like to claim that their appalling reputation on human rights is the result of some form of international propaganda conspiracy against them; and that we play a leading role in a campaign of falsification. Of course that is not the case. There is overwhelming evidence, as the hon. Gentleman said, from many sources of systematic abuse of human rights throughout Sudan, of the regime's lack of respect for fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, of brutal interrogation and of enforced movement of population, to which I will refer in a moment. These abuses occur not only in the south. There are persistent and ugly stories of persecution of minorities in the Nuban hills. Obviously, I cannot give the House details of that because the Sudanese Government do not allow sufficient access to the area.
The hon. Gentleman also quite rightly drew attention to the fact that it is not only in the south that the people of the Sudan are enduring misery. Many Sudanese, rendered destitute by civil war and drought, have sought sanctuary around the cities of Khartoum and Kosti ekeing out a meagre living where they can. The visible evidence of large-scale deprivation around the capital has prompted the Government to pursue a policy of forcible relocation of more than 700,000 displaced people to more remote sites, without basic facilities or reasonable access to employment. The Government have also restricted the access of those people to humanitarian assistance.
We and other aid donors have called on the Government of Sudan to halt those inhumane policies. We have sought to replace them with planned, voluntary resettlement to properly prepared sites and pressed for increased access by international NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance where it is needed. We have also provided practical support with grants of about £1·5 million to British NGOs to support their relief programmes.
The settlements are still being bulldozed, however, and families uprooted. The EC troika Ministers are visiting one of the sites today to see conditions for themselves and to renew efforts to secure improved conditions for displaced people throughout Sudan.
That the evidence against the Sudanese Government's overall record is widespread and conclusive is reflected in the remarkable vote in the United Nations General Assembly in December, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when a resolution highly critical of the Sudanese record was adopted by 104 votes to eight. We co-sponsored that resolution and worked hard to secure its adoption. We also co-sponsored a resolution earlier this year in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which secured the appointment of a rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan on a public basis. That is an important step. We shall continue to do everything we can to keep the spotlight of the world on Sudan in the hope of bringing about change. There have been signs that the regime does react to international pressure. There have been promises to improve co-operation on the distribution of aid. In recent weeks, the regime has also declared a ceasefire in the south. Those signs are, obviously, to be welcomed.
Affection is felt in the House and in the country, traditionally, for the people of the Sudan. Our shared destiny goes back a long way. The colonial legacy comprised mutual respect, rather than bitterness. That makes the turmoil and the misery experienced in the Sudan all the harder for us to contemplate. We will continue to do all that we can to help. I wish that I could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I was wholly confident that we could expect a sustained improvement in the attitude of the Sudanese Government and the warring factions to the vital tasks of peacemaking, rebuilding the shattered infrastructure and protecting the human rights of all Sudanese people.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his service to the House in bringing the issue before it. I assure him that we will continue to press for those vital tasks to he undertaken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.